Accenture Releases Consumer Broadcast Survey

By Mansha Daswani

Published: April 20, 2009

NEW YORK: Surveying 14,000 consumers in 13 countries, Accenture has found that people are watching more content on a greater number of platforms than they were a year ago, and are more willing to pay for programming via subscription services.

The results of Accenture's second annual Global Broadcast Consumer Survey point to the increasing fragmentation of the traditional viewing experience. Accenture reveals that 40 percent of respondents watch six or more channels, up from 35 percent last year, and 39 percent watch eight or more programs a week, up from 33 percent last year. Plus, 74 percent indicated they would watch TV on a PC, versus just 61 percent last year, and 45 percent said they would watch on mobile devices, up from 32 percent last year.

Accenture also founded a notable difference in consumption between developed and maturing markets. For example, respondents in Mexico, Brazil and Malaysia were nearly three times as likely as those in the U.S., Germany and the U.K., to express interest in watching television content on mobile phones.

“Consumers are making choices based on what they’ve tried, liked and rejected and are now selecting content and its delivery platforms,” said David Wolf, a senior executive with Accenture’s Media & Entertainment practice. “If today’s content services don’t meet consumer expectations, it will be that much harder for providers to sell to them later, even when services improve. Providers face an urgent need to capture consumer loyalty now—and respond to changing consumption habits—or face playing catch-up against other content delivery choices. The modes of consumption that provide an alternative to the traditional TV experience are becoming part of everyday life rather than the occasional novelty. Consequently, providers in this evolving market must drive the consumer experience by offering the right type of content via the right device for a particular market.”

Another key finding from the Accenture survey is that consumers remain loyal to their favorite shows; some 73 percent of respondents said they watch some shows on more than one channel. Respondents also indicated that it is more challenging today to discover new shows. Consumers are still using traditional means to find content they would like to watch, including commercials (40 percent), channel surfing (33 percent), recommendations from friends and family (30 percent) and TV listings (28 percent).

In spite of the recession, consumers are willing to pay for content; 49 percent of respondents indicated a willingness to pay for digital service programming, up from 37 percent in last year’s survey. However, 40 percent said they would prefer to watch ads in exchange for free content.

With paid-for programming, the subscription model was the preferred one, over pay to play. Paying a fee for unlimited programming was selected by 25 percent of respondents, while pay-per-episode only scored 12 percent of respondents or pay-per-season 9 percent. Younger consumers are more willing to pay for content than older consumers are (60 percent for respondents younger than 25 versus 38 percent for those 55 and older). Accenture says that subscription service content appears the most resilient to the economy. “This underscores the recession-resistant nature of subscription models even in today’s tough economic climate,” Wolf said.

However, respondents did indicate that less would be spent on DVD sales, on-demand video and mobile phone content.

http://worldscreen.com/articles/display/20636

Internet Set-top-box Scorecard

Set-top boxes have been poppin’ up all over the place this past year. You can’t swing a dead LOLcat without hitting some newfangled device being built or upgraded to bridge oldteevee with the newteevee. To help you keep up with the growing number of options, we put together this Set-Top Scorecard. It rounds up the major STBs we’ve covered over the past few months, and gives you a quick overview on each product.

Click here for more.

Kid Rock Boycotts iTunes, Champions P2P

The digital music revolution has been compromised, according to Kid Rock, because digital music stores and record labels still manage to hoard the lion's share of music revenue.

He advises fans to download his music for free from P2P services, although he himself doesn't have to. "I don't steal things," he told the BBC. "I'm rich." As for everyone else, he says, "Download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live."

Rock's tirade was apparently precipitated by a request from his record label, Warner Music Group's Atlantic Records, that he publicly denounce file sharing. His response: "Wait a second, you've been stealing from the artists for years. Now you want me to stand up for you?" Ouch.

It seems there's no one way that artists are responding to the opportunities and challenges presented by the internet. It's official now: They're all over the map when it comes to downloads, DRM, file sharing and the rest of it, no longer offering the same rationales for completely different conclusions.

"ITunes takes the money, the record company takes the money, and they don't give it to the artists," added the country rock rapper. Instead, he says, the internet offers a "great opportunity for everyone to be treated fairly, for the consumer to get a fair price, for the artist to be paid fairly, for the record companies to make some money."

This makes a lot of sense, and it's the sort of thing that the digital music optimists among us have been saying for years. However, Rock expands on his idea, positing that anyone who needs something should just take it: "I don't mind people stealing my music, that's fine. But I think they should steal everything. You know how much money the oil companies have? If you need some gas, just go fill your tank up and drive off, they're not going to miss it."

Kid Rock's iTunes boycott is already in full effect. As of right now, none of his Warner-era albums are available on iTunes, and only his rarely heard debut album -- 1990's Grits Sandwiches for Breakfast on Zomba Recordings -- is available (clicking the link spawns iTunes).

Meanwhile, Metallica has been busy apologizing for its management company's testosterone-fueled deletion of early reviews of their upcoming album -- more on that soon.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/kid-rock-boycot.html

Digital music firms pay heavy price for labels' support

By Antony Bruno Sat Apr 5, 6:31 AM ET

DENVER (Billboard) - A stark truth facing any aspiring digital music service these days is that working with record labels is going to carry a hefty price.

The last 18 months have seen the major music labels accept new technological and business models -- such as dropping digital rights management and allowing ad-supported free music -- that have given rise to a new generation of digital music services. But the flip side of this willingness to experiment is a demand for higher upfront advances for licensing music and in some cases a substantial equity stake in the company.

Ad-supported download service SpiralFrog, for instance, paid more than $3 million in upfront advances to Universal Music Group alone before it even went live, and has paid additional millions in licensing fees since the original term expired. Imeem is said to have paid advances as high as $20 million and gave labels equity in the company. (Imeem disputes that figure but the equity stake is now a matter of public record.)

Sometimes the price is so high it sabotages the deal. A mobile messaging company recently walked away from negotiations in which a label demanded 85% of the company's gross revenue, even though the deal didn't involve any music licensing.

Labels say it's just the cost of doing business in today's music industry. Critics say it's stunting the establishment of a viable digital entertainment marketplace.

With CD sales in continuing decline and digital revenue still not making up the difference, labels are unapologetic about their insistence in mining every new revenue stream to its fullest potential.

"If you were opening up a retail store on Madison Avenue, I think you have to get a lease for the space," one major-label executive says. "If you want to build a legitimate business, there are costs associated with doing it, and that's no different in the virtual world than the physical world."

Truth be told, digital services -- or their forebears at least -- bear some of the blame for the deal terms getting to where they are today. Just a few years ago, revenue-sharing deals weren't that uncommon. However, according to former EMI digital executive Ted Cohen, labels soon soured on that model as services began gaming the system so that labels ended up with nothing.

That led to labels building "perceived value" of music into subsequent agreements along with various other checks-and-balances and advances designed to mitigate the risk of entering experimental deals. But even Cohen, now a consultant working on behalf of several digital music services, says the practice has gotten out of control to the point where economics are simply unsustainable.

"What was once considered a major advance -- $500,000 or $1 million -- is becoming a $2 million or $5 million advance and really over-the-top requests for equity," he says. "The deals are still unrealistic. If you raise $15 million to start a business, and have to spend $12 million just to pay off the content companies, that leaves you with $3 million to run a company. I don't know anybody able to do that."

Many rankled by these front-loaded deals accuse labels of going for the quick buck in order to meet quarterly revenue objectives at the expense of cultivating a lasting partnership -- essentially treating digital music startups as quick-fix ATMs rather than long-term investments.

"They're trying to match every dollar against a lost dollar, not nurturing new markets," Digital Media Assn. executive director Jonathan Potter said at Billboard's Music & Money Symposium in March. "That's not helping build a business. You need each party to have an equal incentive."

Yet one of the more controversial label demands -- an equity stake -- may in fact prove advantageous for services entering into such a deal. Labels receive dozens of partnership requests almost daily, many of which they don't think have any chance of surviving with or without their help. As such, they are only too happy to forget about them once the check clears.

But if the labels have an equity stake in the company, they have more skin in the game and a greater incentive to nurture the company along. Imeem, considered by some as the poster child for predatory label deals, is actually a case-in-point. Sources on both sides say Imeem's relationship with labels is proving extremely fruitful as a result of the equity deal--with Imeem executives advising some label execs on technical matters and some label execs clearing the lines of communication to their imprints. Imeem would likely prefer more access to labels' potential advertisers, but the deal is still young.

Imeem, however, is considered the exception, not the rule. Unwieldy usage restrictions and expensive licensing fees have already forced several promising partners out of the digital music space (Yahoo, Virgin, AOL). If the music industry wants to collect that Madison Avenue rent from the services of tomorrow, it may need to invest a bit more democratically today rather than trying to recoup the losses of yesterday.

"Here's the big disconnect," Cohen says. "In the physical world, they're paying Wal-Mart for the privilege of selling their music. In the digital world, they're asking the partner to pay them for the privilege of selling. The middle ground should be both sides treating each other with respect and both sides making money."

Reuters/Billboard

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080405/tc_nm/digital_music_dc_2

Club Penguin kids can make donations

By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer

LOS ANGELES - Kids who earn virtual cash in the popular online world "Club Penguin" can give some of it to charity as part of a program announced Monday by the Web site.

"It's showing the kids they can truly make a difference," said Lane Merrifield, a co-founder of Club Penguin, which is based in British Columbia and was purchased last summer by The Walt Disney Co.

In the Club Penguin world, kids win gold coins by playing games such as sled racing and, with a paid membership, buy virtual items like furniture and clothing.

Starting Dec. 14 and running through Dec. 24, kids can choose to donate their virtual money to support the environment, children's health or children's education.

The company will then split $1 million in real dollars among three charities — the World Wildlife Fund, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation and Free The Children.

The Canadian Web site donated a little more than $30 million to charity after Disney agreed to pay $350 million for it. The sellers could get another $350 million if certain profit goals are reached.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071203/ap_on_hi_te/virtual_charity_2;_ylt=AnSNP0dZVO74mi9qd8C6Gl9k24cA

An Allowance That’s Measured in Minutes, Not Cents

By JULIE BICK
Published: November 25, 2007

HOWARD AND LIZZIE SHERMAN, ages 15 and 9, know that they need to complete all their homework and chores in order to receive their weekly allowance. The amount may be a little less than usual if they’ve misbehaved, or a bit larger if they have done some extra work around the house.

When the children want to use their allowance, though, they don’t go to the mall. They turn on the family’s computer or television because there’s a parallel economy in place at the Sherman home, with a currency most often known as “screen time.”

Screen time can be spent playing computer games, watching TV or movies or, for older children, visiting social networking sites like MySpace or instant messaging with friends. This new currency, used in a growing number of households, works as an allowance because screen time is highly valued by children and teenagers, and usually restricted by parents.

They may feel that their children’s time would be better spent reading a book, playing outside or talking directly to another person, according to Richard N. Bromfield, a psychologist on the staff of Harvard Medical School. But for the most part, screen time is seen as acceptable in moderation.

Families dole out the commodity in a variety of ways. Some have their children keep a log book of time used, or have them “spend” it from a stack of 30-minute allotted “tickets.”

For parents who don’t want to keep track themselves, there are devices that will turn off the television or computer automatically when the user has reached a time limit — (although some of today’s children may be more likely to know how to reset the device than their parents do). Some families grant extra screen time based on how much a child reads or practices piano, for example, or the number of days that they’ve avoided fighting with a sibling.

Kathleen Dayton of Seattle lets her twin 10-year-olds, and their little brother, age 7, earn extra screen time for minutes spent on extra math drills. “We reinforce things they’re learning in school,” she said, “and screen time is a really a strong motivator — it makes math happen in my house.”

Household chores stay out of the equation, though. Setting the table, unloading the dishwasher and putting away groceries, come with being a family member, Mrs. Dayton says: “They’re not negotiable.”

And while she sees the value in doling out screen time, she doesn’t want to overdo it. “Screen time isn’t evil — it’s fine in small doses,” she said, “but I feel pretty mixed about giving them much extra.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than two hours of screen time a day, and many parents feel that less is better.

Screen time can be a useful currency for teenagers who might be earning their own money through baby-sitting or other jobs, leaving parents looking for a new form of incentive or punishment.

Karen Vekasy of Stow, Ohio, said that as her son Mike Bailey “grew out of being sent to his room” at about the age of 11, she found that “electricity” — the family’s name for screen time — was his most valued commodity. “It’s entertainment to him and it’s social because he meets his friends online,” she said.

Mike, now 15, earns additional time by assisting his mother with office projects including PowerPoint presentations and video editing, or helping his grandfather with grocery shopping and other household maintenance. “I like the system,” Mike said, adding that it made him more likely to do extra work and less likely to break household rules.

Ms. Vekasy also used a reward of extra electricity to encourage Mike to start volunteering at a hospice. “These days he enjoys going, but without the incentive I don’t think I could have convinced him to try it out,” she said.

Sarah Chana Radcliffe, author of “Raise Your Kids Without Raising Your Voice,” (BPS Books), views screen-time allowances as a great motivator for children. She takes a long-term view of it. “Which adjectives do you want your child described as when they are 20?” she asks. “Do you want them, for example, to be known as responsible, respectful, generous and determined? Then start rewarding them for those behaviors from a young age and slowly phase out the rewards as the actions become more automatic.”

She tells parents to find a currency that their children care about, like screen time.

Mrs. Dayton sympathizes with her son’s desire to check sports scores on the Web and spend time on a Wii game console. “I read the news online; I do my e-mail,” she said. “I like my screen time, too.”

A household’s screen-time allowance system may morph over time. A few years ago, the Shermans, who live in Basking Ridge, N.J., established the rule that all homework, chores and instrument practice had to be completed before their children were allowed to turn on the television or play a video game. “It made sense in theory, but it turned out the kids would just rush through their work in a slapdash way, to get to the electronics,” their mother, Amy Sherman, said. “So we got rid of the weeknight time entirely.”

The Sherman children have learned to abide by the system. Howard knows he needs to keep his grades up or he won’t be allowed to join his friends at the local Friday night video game hangout place. His little sister Lizzie takes care of her real pet dogs before she feeds and pampers her Webkinz, penguins or other online pets. Mrs. Sherman says her children’s screen-time allowance has taught them about prioritization and how putting in extra effort can yield more of what they want out of life.

Dr. Bromfield, the author of “How to Unspoil Your Child Fast,” (Basil Books), cautions parents not to overuse household currency systems. Children are motivated both externally by pleasing their parents or by getting a reward, he said, as well as intrinsically, where they want to do the right thing, or high-quality work, because it feels good inside to do so.

REWARDING all a child’s good behaviors with toys, points, money or screen time can override the child’s burgeoning sense of self-motivation. “When used too much, rewards can quash a child’s internal desire to do well and do right,” Dr. Bromfield said. “Then a child’s attitude may turn to: ‘What’s in it for me?’”

As long as screen time or another reward system is part of a larger arsenal of flexible parenting strategies, Dr. Bromfield said, it can be very effective.

And parents can aim to use it to their best advantage. Or, as Mrs. Sherman says: “My son doesn’t ask for more computer time. He asks if he can do the dishes this week.”


Permalink

TV Tied To Blood Pressure In Obese Kids

Doctors Recommend Limiting Television To 2 Hours A Day And Forbidding TV While Eating

(WebMD) A new childhood obesity study links watching lots of TV to high blood pressure in obese children.

The researchers advise parents to heed recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) about limiting kids' TV time.

The AAP doesn't recommend TV for children aged 2 or younger. The AAP recommends no more than one to two hours per day of educational, nonviolent programs for older children.

Other tips include removing TVs from children's bedrooms and forbidding TV watching while eating, note the new study's authors, who included Perrie Pardee and Jeffrey Schwimmer, M.D., of the pediatrics department at the University of California, San Diego.

Television and Obese Children

Pardee, Schwimmer, and colleagues studied 546 obese kids and teens (average age: almost 12).

The children sought obesity treatment between 2003 and 2005 in San Diego, San Francisco, or Dayton, Ohio.

The kids had an average BMI (body mass index, which relates height to
weight) of 35.5, putting them in the top 5 percent of BMI for their age and sex.

The kids' parents reported how much TV their child watched on a typical day.
Children aged 8 and older helped their parents report TV time.

More than three-quarters of the kids -- 78 percent -- reported watching at least two hours of TV per day.

The children got their blood pressure recorded once for the study. Nearly half of the children -- 43 percent -- had a blood pressure reading that was in the hypertension range.

The heaviest children were the most likely to have a high blood pressure reading -- and to watch lots of TV.

Children who watched 2-4 hours of TV per day were 2.5 times as likely as kids who watch no more than two hours of daily TV to have high blood pressure.

Cause and Effect Unclear

The study, which is due to appear in December's edition of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, has some limits.

As an observational study, it doesn't prove cause and effect. That is, the findings don't prove that watching TV raised the kids' blood pressure; other factors may have been involved.

An editorial published with the study raises these questions for further research:

# Why is obesity increasing while TV viewing isn't increasing?
# Why does obesity increase in adolescence, when TV viewing decreases?
# Why do boys, who watch more TV than girls, show less obesity and more physical activity?

"Focusing on just one set of behaviors may not be enough," writes editorialist Stuart Biddle, Ph.D.

For instance, Biddle points out that turning off the TV doesn't make for a more active child if that child just starts playing computer games.

Biddle works at the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, England.


By Miranda Hitti

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/30/health/webmd/main3432331.shtml

Parents limiting kids' TV time; education a concern

November 1, 2007

BY STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Parents are taking a more active role in raising their children than they did a decade ago, setting greater restrictions on television watching and reading more to youngsters, the Census Bureau reported Wednesday.

The findings suggest that adults are reacting to a more dangerous world, while both parents and students are dealing with increased competition to get into good colleges, experts said.

"Whether it's a realistic panic or not, things like school shootings or child abductions or pedophile predators, that has a certain group of American parents pretty worried," said Angela Hattery, a sociology professor at Wake Forest University.

The report is from the Census Bureau's 2004 survey of income and program participation, which had a sample of 46,500 households. The results were compared with answers from the same survey questions in 1994.

In 2004, about 47% of teenagers had multiple television restrictions, including limits on program types, the time of day they could watch and how much they could see. That compares with 40% in 1994.

Nearly 71% of children age 6 to 11 had such limits in 2004, compared with 60% a decade earlier.

"All you have to do is own a TV," said Hattery, a parent. "I'm shocked at what you can see at 8 o'clock."

Parents also are feeling peer pressure to spend more time with their kids, and guilt when they don't, said Elizabeth Cooksey, a sociology professor at Ohio Sate University.

"We've really moved into this cultural expectation that this is what good parents do," Cooksey said. "It's more a cultural consensus, that if we are going to be parents, we are going to have to put time into it."

More parents read to their children in 2004 than a decade earlier. Wealthier, better-educated parents were more likely to do so than parents with lower incomes and less education.

Overall, 51% of parents with children age 3 to 5 said they had read to them at least seven times a week in 2004, compared with about 47% in 1994.

Students also are feeling pressure at school, with increased testing at all grade levels and tougher requirements to get into college.

It is no wonder: About 85% of parents said in 2004 that they expected their children to graduate from college.

To help, there were significant increases in students taking classes outside the regular school day, including lessons in music, dance, languages, computers and religion. About 29% of teenagers took such classes in 2004, compared with 19% in 1994.

The share of teens who played sports dropped during the decade, from 42% to 39%.

In addition to improving a college application, extracurricular activities help students feel accepted among their peers, said Ellen deLara, an assistant professor of social work at Syracuse University who works with adolescents.

"The notion of being activities that are worthy, whether it is community service or the band, that is extremely important to them," deLara said. "Adolescents who don't have the opportunity for that may feel alienated at school or in society in general."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS07/711010353/1009

Parent Groups to Promote 'Good' TV Shows for Kids

Alliance Launches Positive Push Instead of Slamming 'Bad' Programming

By Ira Teinowitz

Published: October 16, 2007
WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- Publicizing good shows rather than ripping bad ones is the best way to improve TV for children. That's the verdict of a coalition of groups including the National PTA and the National Education Association, which are unveiling a Smart Television Alliance to tout better programming to parents, caregivers and advertisers.

"Much of children's television stinks," Susan Scanlan, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said at a press conference today. "We don't need a poll to learn that children have all-too-easy access to violent, indecent, inappropriate or just plain stupid TV programming."

She said aim is to increase ratings and advertiser support for better shows. The urging will come in a twice-a-month newsletter and a website that members of the groups can access. The website, smarttelevisionalliance.org, won't rate shows itself but will list shows recommended by child experts. Ms. Scanlan said the alliance, which is being formed with funding from TiVo, may meet with networks, advertisers and program providers.

"Rather than sit back and wait and wait for something to change, [the alliance] is going to change children's television ourselves," Ms. Scanlan said.

Not enough
National PTA CEO Warlene Gary said the media industry hasn't done enough on its own. "Those in the television industry have had years to provide parents and families with the tools they require and deserve," she said. "Unfortunately these efforts have fallen far short of even basic needs. The PTA was intimately involved with the negotiations that created the television rating system. We had high hopes for it, but those hopes have not been realized."

NEA President Reg Weaver said teachers, too, have been eyeing children's TV. "We have long been concerned about the impact of television, particularly violent television on children," he said. "Studies show that average child spends about 900 hours in the classroom during the course of a school year but 1,023 hours in front of a TV. Think about the level of violence to which they are frequently exposed. Thousands of studies have been conducted on children, television and violence, and according to a majority, kids who watch violent programming are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior."

Other groups in the alliance include the Afterschool Alliance, the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies, the Coalition for Quality Children's Media, Kids First, Common Sense Media, the Parents' Choice Foundation and the YWCA.

An alliance official said one reason for the positive focus was a fear that bashing programs could be counterproductive, potentially making "bad" programs more appealing to kids.

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=121203

Ad dollars flood Web, but will they go far enough?

By Paul Thomasch Fri Oct 12, 12:42 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Companies will spend a record $31 billion this year to advertise everything from toothpaste to home loans on the Internet, supporting countless news sites, social networks, video exchanges and blogs.

But some media veterans worry that expectations for online advertising may be getting out-sized.

Increasingly, they say, too much media depends on advertising as the only source of revenue. With new players from software makers to cable operators also trying to cash in, the dollars simply may not stretch far enough.

"I'm getting to the point where I feel like every answer to every business development pitch is 'We're going to be advertiser supported'," said Beth Comstock, president of Integrated Media at NBC Universal, which this year set up a fund to invest in media and digital companies.

"It's just not going to be possible," she said at a recent advertising conference. "There are not going to be enough advertising dollars in the marketplace. No matter how clever we are, no matter what the format is."

NBC Universal's television networks, cable channels and Web sites compete for advertising dollars with everything from niche blogs to big media peers like Time Warner Inc (TWX.N) and Walt Disney Co (DIS.N). In addition fast-growing Internet companies like Google Inc (GOOG.O) are snatching up advertising budgets.

But new rivals are entering the market. Comcast Corp. (CMCSA.O), the largest U.S. cable operator, expects at least $1 billion in online advertising in the next five to six years.

Verizon Communications (VZ.N) and AT&T (T.N) are looking at advertising opportunities on their video and wireless services, while startups like social network Facebook are seen as a new frontier for Web marketing.

Even Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) has made a bold move into advertising with its purchase of Web marketing firm aQuantive.

THE MONEY FLOW

Until recently, the focus was squarely on how much money is moving into online advertising, rather than whether too many companies are making a grab for it.

There is little doubt today that a hefty portion of advertising dollars will shift to the Internet from TV, radio, print and elsewhere in the coming years. ZenithOptimedia forecasts that online ads worldwide will rise 28 percent in 2007, while the rest of the market grows at 3.7 percent.

Next year, ZenithOptimedia forecasts it to rise by 21 percent, and climb another 13 percent to $43 billion in 2009.

At that point, Web advertising would represent almost 10 percent of the $495 billion spent on advertising worldwide -- yet would trail spending on newspapers, magazines, and TV.

"There are billion of dollars that can still move," said Craig Lambert, Chief Digital Director of Colangelo, an integrated marketing agency based in Darien, Connecticut.

"Is there enough money flowing to support the businesses out there? I'd guess there is, just because there's so much money that has always been spent on TV and print," he added.

BIG SITES GET BIG DOLLARS

Others also take the position that there should be sufficient advertising money to spread around.

Jeff Brooks, Chief Executive of digital and direct marketing agency Euro RSCG 4D, sees a "huge gap" between the amount of time people spend on digital media and the amount of advertising money it attracts.

"The thrust of ad spending online, while dramatic in its growth quarter over quarter, still represents a disproportionately small percentage of total advertising dollars," he said.

The catch, according to some, is that much of the money flowing toward the Internet is concentrated on a few dozen of the most popular sites. That has left smaller, less well-known sites at a severe disadvantage when it comes to attracting advertising money and surviving.

In the United States, the top 50 Web sites accounted for more than 90 percent of the revenue from online ads in the first half of 2007, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The top 10 sites accounted for 70 percent of the revenue.

All the while, the number of Web sites continues to grow, creating more competition for audiences -- and advertisers -- who can also choose among video games, movies, TV, portable music and every other type of media entertainment.

"It's not like the old days, when it was 'if you build it, they will come,"' said Jonathan Sackett, Chief Digital Officer at Arnold Worldwide, a Boston-based advertising agency. "Now if you build it, they probably won't."

One alternative for Web sites would be to bank on subscriptions rather than advertising revenue, but few existing outlets have been successful with that model.

The reason is that unless the site offers extraordinary content, people simply refuse to pay for it, said Mark Miller, president of RMG Connect, an advertising and marketing agency.

"If Warren Buffett wanted to put out his own subscription newsletter online, well, I'm sure he'd get a bucketful of people to subscribe to it," Miller said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/tc_nm/advertising_web_dc_1

Article: Movie downloads: Digital will generate valuable incremental revenue for the movie business

London 4th September 2007: The latest report from Screen Digest (www.screendigest.com) released today examines how the individual Hollywood Studios are adapting their businesses to online movie distribution. Notably, the report finds that a viable business will emerge in the US and W Europe for movie downloading, but warns that the Studios are following a fragmented path to digital distribution, with each major following a different strategy. This is likely to hamper the development of movie downloads and ultimately confuse and fragment the consumer market. The research provides detailed analysis and forecasts of the movie distribution business in the US and W Europe, and reveals that the overall winners in this market will not only be the Studios who own the content, but major device manufacturers such as Microsoft, Apple and Sony. Unique to the report entitled 'Online Movie Strategies: Competitive Review and Market Outlook' are trade level revenues and forecasts of the market for movie downloads, both rental and retail. Screen Digest predicts the market will be worth $1.3bn in 2011 in the US and W Europe combined. Of this, $720m will be generated in the US and $572m in W Europe. The majority of the revenue in 2011 will be taken by the Studios and content owners, at $530m in the US and $405m in W Europe, leaving service and solutions providers to scramble for the remaining share.

For some hardware manufacturers, selling digital movies will be used as a marketing tool to sell devices. In this highly competitive climate, the Studios are able to cash in and command high margins: Screen Digest's analysis reveals that the Studio wholesale price on movie downloads to service providers ranges from 70% to 105% of consumer price on the latest new film releases. As such, for service providers, movie downloads will become a low-margin and potentially loss-making endeavour, and only those service providers who have a strong hardware proposition and are able to absorb the cost, such as Apple, Microsoft or Sony, are likely to succeed.

According to Screen Digest, the online digital movies segment will constitute 3 per cent of all movie home entertainment revenues in the US and W Europe by 2011. This may be smaller than some observers were expecting, but is still a significant market and will bring much needed incremental revenue to the movie business as DVD growth falls away. Arash Amel, Senior Analyst and author of the report says "At Screen Digest we have re-evaluated our 2006 forecasts of the digital movie market value in response to consumer reaction to existing services. It is becoming increasingly apparent that people want to watch films they've downloaded on their large screen TVs and home entertainment systems. To do that, they need a new device, such as an Apple TV, an Xbox, a PS3 or a plain old media extender, which can link their broadband connection to the TV set. At present, there simply isn't adequate penetration of these devices – and the idea that people will en masse watch a two or three-hour movie on the PC just isn't realistic. It will take time to reach a wider market penetration with these new devices, and we believe that this will start to become more main stream beyond 2011.

In the competitive analysis section of the report, the different strategies and tactics employed by the Studios for exploiting digital movie content are compared. Unlike the introduction of the DVD, where the Studios agreed a single format and approximate business model, digital is being handled very differently. Every Studio has its own view and approach to this new era, resulting in the development of a fragmented market, which will undoubtedly hinder the future development of digital.For example, some Studios are likely to adopt a 'day and date' strategy for film release, making content available across all platforms on the same day, from the physical DVD to online downloads. Others will continue with different release dates depending on the delivery medium. As Amel concludes "How the Studios react is crucial. It's a delicate balancing act between maintaining their relationships with their highly important DVD customer base – the powerful retailers like Walmart and Tesco – whilst meeting growing consumer demand for immediate online downloads."



For more information please contact:
Screen Digest:
Fay Hamilton
PR Manager
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7424 2847
fay.hamilton@screendigest.com

Media enquiries:
Lucy Green
Tel: +44 (0) 7817 698366
lgreen@greenfieldscommunications.com

About this research
The data in this press release is taken from Screen Digest's latest report 'Online Movie Strategies: Competitive Review and Market Outlook'. The report focuses on the online distribution of digital movies in W Europe and the US, and contains detailed analysis of the strategies of the major Hollywood Studios. Comprehensive data includes consumer spending on movie downloading, as well as trade level revenues generated by content owners, together with the value of the total movie home entertainment market. The report also details the penetration of technology: including broadband connectivity, portable video device data and in-home broadband-enabled entertainment device forecast. The company profiles section of the report presents key details on eight Hollywood Studios, including the size of libraries prepared for digital distribution and a comprehensive benchmarking of service deals struck in the US and W Europe.

About Screen Digest - Global media intelligence
Screen Digest is the pre-eminent firm of industry analysts covering the global media markets. We employ a team of 30 specialist analysts covering television, broadband, mobile, home entertainment, cinema and gaming. Our online services and reports provide the information and analysis that hundreds of media companies worldwide base their decisions on.

To find out more, please contact Screen Digest sales/sales@screendigest.com
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7424 2820. www.screendigest.com

http://www.screendigest.com/reports/07onlinemoviestrat/press_releases_04_09_2007/view.html

Article: Cartoon Network New Media Invites Kids to Rule After School with Master Control

Starting Sept. 24 kids can join interactive teams at CartoonNetwork.com where they will vote for their favorite shows; winners gain domination over the network’s after-school airwaves

Just in time to take some of the sting out of back-to-school season, Cartoon Network New Media launches the 15-week first season of Master Control on Sept. 24. Master Control is an unprecedented multiplatform initiative that gives kids control over the after-school time block on Cartoon Network and builds an engaging fan network online at CartoonNetwork.com.

As Master Control kicks off, fans can visit CartoonNetwork.com and join one of three Master Control teams. Team members can vote online for which Cartoon Network show they’d like to see air Monday through Thursday in the 5:30 p.m. program slot. The team that casts the most votes each Friday decides the entire 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. programming block for that day (all times are ET, PT).

“We are committed to delivering multiplatform activities that will spark engagement and empowerment for the Cartoon Network audience,” said Paul Condolora, senior vice president and general manager of Cartoon Network New Media. “Master Control does that and offers a Cartoon Network twist to online voting for television programming.”

Master Control teams will have home pages that serve as virtual clubhouses with themed logos in addition to branding that will carry through to network promotions and on-air bumpers.

At launch, kids can choose to join one of three Master Control teams, switching allegiances as they like throughout the season. In the spirit of fun and over-the-top adventure, the teams are:

Shadowmark: Stealthy and mysterious, Shadowmark achieves its goals by any means necessary.

Vikinators: Fiercely competitive warriors, the Vikinators never back down.

Blastadons: Elite warlocks by birthright, Blastadons wield powerful and ancient magic.

“The team home pages will serve as a rallying point for members,” said Art Roche, Cartoon Network New Media creative director. “We think kids will love the interactive element of competing against other teams. Fans really will control the destiny of everything, working together to beat their opponents from week to week.”

As the Master Control season progresses, Cartoon Network will roll out more team-themed activities and extras, culminating in a tournament-play round, the winner of which gains even more days of control over the network lineup.

About Cartoon Network New Media

Cartoon Network New Media is responsible for the production of Cartoon Network’s popular Web sites, which include CartoonNetwork.com, ToonamiJetstream.com, Awesomehouseparty.com and CartoonNetworkYa.com (the Spanish-language site for kids). These sites are some of the most popular entertainment sites in the world for kids, currently attracting an average of more than 6 million unique users each month in the U.S. (Nielsen//NetRatings). The top attraction is their roster of games, which drew more than 2 billion game plays in 2006. In addition, Cartoon Network New Media is the creative force behind Cartoon Network’s video-on-demand offerings, interactive TV and mobile offerings, which include partnerships with such major carriers as Sprint, Cingular and Verizon.

About Cartoon Network

Cartoon Network (CartoonNetwork.com), currently seen in more than 91 million U.S. homes and 160 countries around the world, is Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.’s ad-supported cable service offering the best in original, acquired and classic animated entertainment for kids and families. Overnight from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Sunday (ET, PT), Cartoon Network shares its channel space with Adult Swim, a late-night destination showcasing original and acquired animation for young adults 18-34.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner company, is a major producer of news and entertainment product around the world and the leading provider of programming for the basic cable industry.

CONTACTS:
Jessica Wolf MPRM Public Relations (323) 933-3399 JWolf@mprm.com
Tim DeClaire Cartoon Network (404) 575-9283 tim.declaire@turner.com

http://www.turnerinfo.com/newsitem.aspx?P=CARTOON&CID01=61c020bb-e491-44c3-838c-31f94231020f

Article: Is Vudu the iPod of for-Pay Internet Video?

The Internet video download market has had a rough go of it lately. With Google (GOOG) bailing on its efforts to sell shows on Google Video, Blockbuster (BBI) buying Movielink for pocket change, and even Apple’s (AAPL) video business still accounting for only a smidgen of music sales two years after its launch, it’s a wonder that some pundits aren’t saying the future of Internet video is one that is going to be entirely ad-supported.

Oh wait, they are.

Call me crazy, but I think for-pay video on the Internet has a future as well. Sure, the majority of TV shows, user-generated content and all sorts of other video will mainly be paid for using ads, but there are some types of content for which consumers will pull out their credit cards. And I’m not just talking porn and Major League Baseball.

Where I think the pay market has a particularly bright future is the movie business. After all, we all love movies, and we love watching them in our homes — regardless of how they’re delivered. And movies that get released to home video aren’t about to show up on any ad-supported streaming sites anytime soon, at least not legally.

So what will it take for the for-pay Internet video market to take off? Simply put, when it gets its iPod.

The Internet video market today is much like the digital music market pre-iPod, with lots of solutions, services, and software, none of which work particularly well together where it matters most – the delivery device. What the Internet video market needs, then, is a device that looks at home next to the TV, outputs at DVD- and eventually HD-quality, and works without headache.

Maybe it will be Apple TV. But it won’t be with this version, because for all of the advances it has brought to the connected entertainment market, this product currently has some key shortcomings, most notably the absence of both direct download and an option to rent.

So who will bring the for-pay Internet market its iPod moment? So far the most eligible product I’ve seen comes from Vudu. (Our original post on Vudu.) The box, which the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company loaned me to tinker with over the past week, does most of what I consider necessary to bring Internet video to TV in an almost entirely pain-free fashion:

* Instant, or nearly instant, streaming of movies
* A wide catalog of movies across all major studios, with enough of a back catalog to make things interesting
* The ability to rent or own
* Easy network and video connection setups
* Intuitive and engaging user interface

I started using the Xbox 360 Video Marketplace when it came out, but stopped using it after I’d downloaded the only three or four movies in the service’s small library in which I had any interest. I also found I would get bored waiting for the movie to download, something Vudu avoids by nearly instant streaming.

It’s this instant-watch capability that had me most intrigued. The folks at Vudu told me that their technology to enable streaming is based on P2P, and while I have yet to connect with their CTO to talk about the specifics, I was and still am a little skeptical about the ability to do instant streaming using P2P. But, whatever they are using, be it a CDN, P2P or pop cans and string, I found that over the course of the last week I’ve been able to select and watch shows nearly instantaneously. At times I was told my Comcast connection wasn’t fast enough (the user guide told me I needed a consistent 1.7 Mbps connection), but then within ten minutes or so it would say it was ready to watch the show. Other times it has allowed me to watch the show instantly, and the quality has been DVD quality (they say they will be rolling out HD in the future).

Vudu has yet to roll out their box at retail, and I’ll be watching very closely to see whether — once they’re in wide release — these boxes all work as well as the one I’ve been using this past week. As we all know, new services tend to have performance issues once mass rollouts happen, as we saw with Joost’s entry into wider beta. And even with the smoothness of the service’s performance, I still have problems with pretty much all Internet VOD service limited usage rights – including Vudu’s. (Why, oh why, can we only have 24 hours to watch a movie once we start it – doesn’t anyone in Hollywood fall asleep watching movies?).

For now, I’m sticking with my belief that Internet pay VOD will eventually take off, and with the release of Vudu, that could happen sooner than later.

Mike Wolf is the Director of Digital Home Research for ABI Research (www.abiresearch.com) and writes about Internet Video and other topics. He also blogs occasionally between report deadlines on Internet TV and other topics here.

http://newteevee.com/2007/09/05/is-vudu%e2%80%99s-the-ipod-of-for-pay-internet-video/#more-1996

Article: French toon export sales down

As several hundred delegates today prepared to depart TV France International's annual sales market Le Rendez-Vous in picturesque Biarritz, the organization released industry stats for 2006. They paint a less-than-rosy picture for France's largest programming export - animation. The genre's international sales were down 6.1% last year to US$58.3 million.

French animation distributors experienced significant sales drops in the UK (down 32.6%) and North America (37.6%), in particular. Latin America proved to be a bright light, with animation exports to the region shooting up by 21.6% last year. In general, TV France's year-end report cites stiff competition in the global sector as the chief reason for the downturn.

French co-productions didn't fare much better. The value of French-initiated animation co-pros dropped by 18.8%, while foreign investment in French animation was down 48.6%. However, French-majority co-pros were up by 30.4%, boosted by new financing options including regional subsidies and tax credits. In all, animation co-pros accounted for 423 hours of programming last year, bringing in US$20 million in foreign capital.

http://www.kidscreen.com/articles/daily/20070906/french.html

Article: Jetix launches on-demand channel in Singapore

by Gary Rusak

Walt Disney Television International has launched the first Jetix-branded subscription VOD service in Asia. Kids in Singapore will get a chance to order up content on IPTV SingTel's brand new digital cable mio TV service.

Aimed at kids six to 14, the service will offer series such as W.I.T.C.H., Get Ed, Super Robot Monkey Team Hyper Force Go and A.T.O.M.. All in, 20 hours of Jetix content will be available on the channel at any given time, with 25% of it being refreshed monthly.

The mio TV Rent-A-Pack nine-channel offering that includes Jetix will cost subscribers US$4.20 per month.

http://www.kidscreen.com/articles/daily/20070830/singapore.html

Article: Pass the Popcorn. But Where’s the Movie?

By RANDALL STROSS
Published: August 19, 2007

AS consumers by the millions install new flat-screen, high-definition TV sets this year, more than half of which will have 50-inch or larger screens, they can proudly say that they are doing their part to modernize the movie-viewing experience at home.

Cable operators have done their part, too, building a video-on-demand infrastructure that can supply viewers with a nearly limitless choice of movie titles, available at any time of day. No trips to the rental store. No vigils at the mailbox for discs from the subscription service. No purchases of additional computer hardware to transport downloaded movie files to somewhere else in the house. Just a couple of clicks of the cable remote control.

All is ready — except an unstinting supply of movies. The studios have balked.

According to Craig Moffett, vice president and senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, cable’s video-on-demand is well positioned, technically speaking, to be the preferred way that movies reach the home, but the Cable Guys cannot get access to Hollywood’s products: “They built a Ferrari of a delivery engine, but the content owners didn’t show up.”

The movie studios are preternaturally suspicious of the new and unfamiliar. Their fear has nothing to do with crunching the numbers, but rather with large organizations’ tendency to lose sight of their interests — not to mention their customers’. Thanks to the efficiencies of digital delivery, the studios actually earn three times the margin on each video-on-demand viewed that they earn on a store rental, while charging the same $4.

Comcast now has secured rights to offer only about 300 movie titles on-demand on any given day, excluding premium channels like HBO; about 50 of those are high-definition. It has a long way to go to match the comprehensive coverage of Netflix’s 80,000 titles or Blockbuster Online’s 75,000.

But the on-demand menu does not have to attain comparable size immediately, especially since Netflix’s and Blockbuster’s lists mostly consist of the long tail of backlist titles for which demand is low — and high-definition versions are scant. The overwhelming bulk of viewers’ requests could be met simply by having the newest releases on hand in all formats.

To their credit, the major studios have shown a willingness to re-examine the artificial limits they have placed on video-on-demand. Late last year, six studios began an experiment with Comcast in Denver and Pittsburgh, making their newest releases available for viewing on demand the same day the DVD went on sale. Time Warner Cable is in the third month of a similar, six-month trial in Austin, Tex., and Columbus, Ohio.

The studios contend that the trials are necessary so they can be certain that DVD sales are not hurt by immediate availability of video-on-demand. This is supposed to be a $16 billion question, which is the size of the domestic DVD market, the lifeblood of the industry. The sum dwarfs the $10 billion in total box-office revenue or the $8 billion from movie rentals. Because prospective DVD buyers have always had a less-expensive alternative the day when DVDs go on sale — namely, renting the title — it is hard to see why video-on-demand poses a different cannibalistic threat.

Comcast has not yet released details of its findings. Earlier this month, however, Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner’s president and chief operating officer, offered some encouraging tidbits. He said that when a movie title was made available on-demand the same day the DVD was released, revenue from video-on-demand rentals increased 50 percent — and retail sales actually went up 5 to 10 percent. To explain the somewhat surprising gains in stores, Mr. Bewkes speculated that sales of a new title were depressed in the past by the almost-instant availability of used DVDs for sale at rental stores like Blockbuster.

The movie studio is paid only once — when the DVD is sold the first time — and not when it is resold used. For the studios, digital delivery of a rental eliminates the problem of a physical product being resold, cutting into the sales of new copies without generating additional royalties. And studios are paid every time an on-demand video is viewed.

The digital delivery system of video-on-demand offers many advantages to consumers, too. The immediate gratification provided by instant fulfillment of a viewing request is no trifle. The Netflix model assumes that the lag between the time a subscriber enters a requested title and when that title finally shows up in the mailbox does not matter all that much — that as long as a consumer has at least one unwatched DVD on hand at any time and the queue of requested titles is kept full of good stuff, the customer shouldn’t care when a particular title reaches the top of the queue and wends its way through the postal system to the home.

Netflix customers apparently do care, however. The company has had to build out its shipping centers from one at its founding in 1998 to 44 today, in an effort to minimize transit delays. Even so, the time that elapses between a Netflix user’s request and the delivery of a title is measured in days. With video-on-demand, it’s seconds.

Netflix also struggles to have enough copies of the hottest titles on hand. The swords-sandals-and-pecs hit “300” was released on the last day of July and immediately became the top rental in the nation. Two weeks after its release, however, subscribers were warned on their on-screen queues that they faced a “very long wait.” (Blockbuster Online could not do better.)

So, too, with the No. 2 rental title, “Hot Fuzz.” In fact, in mid-August, Netflix had on hand, ready for shipping, only 4 of the top 10 titles nationally listed as the most popular DVD rentals the week before. With digital transport, a single master can simultaneously supply as many households that wish to view the DVD; inventory management problems — and “very long wait” notices — disappear.

AMERICANS have never failed to show their appreciation for services that provide speedy gratification; the instant variety is preferred most. Once the cooperation of the studios is secured, video-on-demand will become the most popular means of renting movies.

When Netflix made its debut almost 10 years ago, many movie viewers discovered that sitting at a desk at home and using a Web site to select rental titles was considerably easier than going to a store to choose a rental. Video-on-demand offers the next enhancement: ordering by remote control

while stretched across the living room couch.

Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University. E-mail: stross@nytimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/business/yourmoney/19digi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

How To: Tunneling BitTorrent over SSH

Have you ever been on a network somewhere where Bittorrent simply doesn’t work? The ports might be blocked, the packets are inspected, etc…? Well, after a little research and a buck i’ve managed to come up with a pretty good solution. I’d heard about tunneling content through SSH, but never really figured out how to get it working. That is, until now.

I was really excited my first day at Blue Lava when I heard that they had a 20mbps connection. I was told I could download full Linux ISO’s in ten minutes. Pretty quick. Sadly the ports for Bittorrent were blocked and my downloading spree never began.

Right now I am sitting in a Starbucks right near the south shore of Oahu, Hawaii. I’ve got Azureus open and its downloading at a steady pace of 170kbps, I’ve pretty much maxxed out the connection over here. The funny (or cool) thing is, the ports are blocked! So how can you bypass your corporate firewall or public hotspot (like Starbucks T-Mobile WiFi) and work out your download muscle? Read on!

First of all, you are going to need some sort of shell account to tunnel everything through. I’ve already tried using my Silenceisdefeat account, but their SSH server is not configured the way that we want it, so that won’t work. A friend of mine told me about Disflux, a service almost exactly like Silenceisdefeat. Disflux has their SSH servers configured the way we want em though, so that is what we are going to use.

UPDATE: Turns out that Disflux died or something. But! Don’t flip out! As it turns out (Thanks Chris! - #19) Silenceisdefeat.org, which is my choice of shell anyway, does work with this guide. However, it will only work if you connect to ssh.silenceisdefeat.org!

So I shelled out the $1 for my disflux Silenceisdefeat.org shell account (I actually already had one, best thing ever), and went on my merry way figuring out how to configure everything else. Some may think that paying for something like this is nuts, but honestly, Bittorrent has become a part of my everyday life, I depend on it like a crack addict depends on his crack. One buck is totally worth the hours of glee BitTorrent has to offer.

First thing you need to do after buying your shell account is open up a terminal (in OSX its in the Utilities folder), or download putty if you’re on Windows. If you are on Linux and don’t know how to open a terminal I feel sorry for you.

In the terminal type “ssh username@domain -D portnumber”, this goes for OSX and Linux. Now, with PuTTY on Windows I am not quite sure how to go about doing this. I am pretty sure you would just type “-D portnumber” into a extra flags option box or something, but I am really not quite sure. Edit: Scroll down for Eberth’s Windows guide! Or you lazy people can clicky.

For example, I use: “ssh whalesalad@ssh.silenceisdefeat.org -D 7777″. You can use any port you want, but make sure it isn’t being used by anything else. I happen to like the number 7777 so thats what I chose.

Screenshot_3.png

NOTE: In the screenshots Disflux is used, simply replace shelly.disflux.com with ssh.silenceisdefeat.org after creating an account and you will have no problems!

Now, what does this do? This has your open SSH session act as a SOCKS proxy. This is what we are going to have Azureus or any other bittorrent client of choice use.

Once that terminal is open, just minimize or hide it, but leave it open. The proxy will only work if that terminal is open and connected, so try not to fiddle with it.

Now we have to configure our BitTorrent client of choice. I recently “switched” to OSX and am using Azureus, but if I had my way I would be using the greatest client ever: uTorrent. Because I can’t get the internet working in Paralells at the moment I can’t help explain how to configure uTorrent, but here is what you need to do to get Azureus up and running with our newly created SOCKS proxy.

First of all you need to enable the Advanced options area of Azureus. You can do this by re-running (or running if this is your first time using Azureus) the configuration wizard. On OSX this is under the Azureus menu, I’m not quite sure where it is on Windows (=P). Choose the advanced user option, this will let us configure Azureus to use proxies. Once this is done, open up the preferences area of Azureus.

Screenshot_4.png

From there open up the “Connection” sub items and then the “Proxy Options”. From there, check the “Enable proxying of tracker communications” and “I have a SOCKS proxy”. In the host field enter “localhost” and in the port field enter whatever number you used to start the proxy, for me thats “7777″.

Save your options and thats it! Now you should be able to head to any one of the online tracker websites and download away! Legal files of course, we don’t encourage piracy or stealing here at the salad. Make sure to leave comments if it works for you, and any other tips or tidbits you’d like to share!


Edit: For all you windows users out there, Eberth made a comment below on how to get this working. He did such a good job, I’m going to include it right here in my guide.

First you need to get PuTTY. It’s a great client, back when I used Windows it was my SSH client of choice. You can find a direct link to PuTTy here.

Open up PuTTY and enter shelly.disflux.com into the host field.

Go to Connection > SSH > Tunnels, and write your port on the source port field (in this case i’m using the same as Michael, 7777) and select the “Dynamic” checkbox, click the add button.

I’d reccomend what Eberth explains in his comment, which would be to save your session so that next time you can just fire up PuTTY and double click your saved session to reload the same settings. Enter a name for the saved session and click save, its as easy as pie!

Now you’ve got your SOCKS proxy running, time to fire up your favorite BitTorrent client. Azureus users can use the same configuration that I have above, but if you’re smart you’re going to be using uTorrent. Here is a screenshot of the way Eberth configured his client:

Thanks Eberth!

http://www.whalesalad.com/2006/08/27/tunneling-bittorrent-over-ssh/

Article: Consumers Give Low Marks to Video Downloading

http://newsroom.parksassociates.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4550

Article:'Baby Einstein': a bright idea?

Infants shown such educational series end up with poorer vocabularies, study finds. Researcher says 'American Idol' is better.
By Amber Dance, Times Staff Writer
August 7, 2007

Parents hoping to raise baby Einsteins by using infant educational videos are actually creating baby Homer Simpsons, according to a new study released today.

For every hour a day that babies 8 to 16 months old were shown such popular series as "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein," they knew six to eight fewer words than other children, the study found.

Parents aiming to put their babies on the fast track, even if they are still working on walking, each year buy hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of the videos.

Unfortunately it's all money down the tubes, according to Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Christakis and his colleagues surveyed 1,000 parents in Washington and Minnesota and determined their babies' vocabularies using a set of 90 common baby words, including mommy, nose and choo-choo.

The researchers found that 32% of the babies were shown the videos, and 17% of those were shown them for more than an hour a day, according to the study in the Journal of Pediatrics.

The videos, which are designed to engage a baby's attention, hop from scene to scene with minimal dialogue and include mesmerizing images, like a lava lamp.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television for children under 24 months.

The Brainy Baby Co. and Walt Disney Co., which markets the "Baby Einstein" videos, did not return calls from the Los Angeles Times.

Christakis said children whose parents read to them or told them stories had larger vocabularies.

"I would rather babies watch 'American Idol' than these videos," Christakis said, explaining that there is at least a chance their parents would watch with them — which does have developmental benefits.

amber.dance@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-sci-babyeinstein7aug07,0,3226267.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntottext

Article: Mio TV Launched | Singapore Telecom Plans to Shatter Cable TV’s Monopoly

Singapore Telecommunications (SingTel) today launched its new IPTV service, mio TV. Available in the city-state, its initial offering is of 33 channels including blockbuster movies and offerings from the BBC.

Starting from tomorrow, willing subscribers will a minimum monthly fee of 15 Singaporean dollars per month for a mix of channels, ranging from $3.21 for Zee Music to $12.84 for programmes displayed in high-definition.

SingTel claims that its service will revolutionise the way Singaporeans watch television, by allowing viewers to indulge in what they want, when they want, without being tied down to fixed program schedules or rigid subscription packages.
A television shake-up

The firm hopes mio TV will shake-up the monopoly on pay TV in the country, currently held by StarHub, whose minimum cable fee stands at $29.96 Singaporean dollars.

To achieve this, SingTel is promising to pump $30 million into the project over the next fiscal year, offering the largest range of Video on Demand titles in Singapore.

There’s nothing like a bit of healthy competition, but can Singapore’s IPTV new kids on the block win out against a such deep-rooted opposition, and could similar IPTV business models spread further afield, threatening the likes of DirecTV in North America?

Singtel