When I hear clients repeatedly tell me that they are looking for ways to monetize their content...and learn then that their strategy is based on running ad network pre-rolls, I can't help but roll my eyes. Why? Because ads only equal money...if there are enough eyeballs looking at them. I will suggest to you that revenue generated by your content...should be generated not by your measly share of a rev split with an ad network...but by your content itself!
How?
One word: Syndication.
It's a Universal law that there is a "butt for every seat". The content you create, especially if vertically focused and of a high production quality...is missing a large audience because you aren't syndicating it.
In the late 90's, I left CNN because I thought the Internet offered exponential opportunity to reach audiences for whom a given piece of content could be extremely RELEVANT. After all, the Internet offered up a way to identify individual potential viewers...and play eHarmony with them and media content that would be relevant to them. One missing ingredient ruined the whole idea: only about 8% of the available audience had a broadband connection!
Fast forward a decade and we don't have that problem anymore. And if you're a content creator or content owner in possession of content that is aimed a a given vertical audience...then the sure way to generate more revenue with that content is by offering it up as added value content to online portals who cater to the same audience your content does. By making your content available to such destination portals, you access an ever-widening number of eyeballs. If you do it right, you can create a true win-win with the portal owner-helping to make their property more valuable, while at the same time-growing an aggregate audience for your content. With the enormous numbers of eyeballs you will aggregate via your own syndicate network...you will then be able to generate attractive rates on any promotion served up with your content. You will also garner new revenue from licensing fees.
Want to know more about how to tap into this vast unclaimed revenue? Just shoot me an email and we can talk about it. Stream on!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
What's Your Definition Of High Definition?
Every one's talking about streaming in "HD" these days. Ha! Do you mean in 720p, 1080i, HDMI...what? Truth is, most folks probably don't know. The other truth is-just because your streaming video is in the 16X9 aspect ratio and captured at a high bit rate...doesn't mean it's "HD". Sorry. Someone had to tell you.
In 1984 I had my very first media job-as an apprentice sound engineer at "Star City Studios" in Lansing, Michigan-a known hotbed in the media world. My title was a bit misleading, as all I seemed to do was set up microphones and amplifiers for scores of bands from Michigan State University who would come to record their one hit wonders. This, is where I got my first lesson about high definition. That's right. I learned my most important lesson about HD video...in a sound studio.
One day, while plugging in and checking levels on the microphones for a fantastic punk band called "The Obnoxious Pigs", I found the lead singer's level lower than the other members. So, I reached over to the mixing board...and pushed the fader on his channel to the top. The VU meter on that track told me the level was now o.k., but a screaming voice in the background from the real sound engineer told me otherwise. "Dude, you can't get a better signal that way! You have to amplify from the source...THROUGH the chain...to the recorder". I got my very first lesson that would later be called G.I.G.O. during the dot com era. The engineer went on to explain that amplification of a substandard signal enhances the volume of not only the good parts of the original signal...but all the bad parts as well. "You're making a crappy signal...more crappy!" he yelled. Instead, I learned to improve the signal at the source (in this case, the pre-amplifier for the mic)...and then work my way downstream. And so it is with HD streaming video.
If you want to REALLY stream HD video...well, you have to begin with an HD source. What does that mean? Well, loosely...a source video signal that boasts 720 to 1080 scan lines...and is either interlaced or progressive scan. Then...you need to capture that source with a video capture card that is able to handle the size of that incoming signal. These are expensive. You probably don't have one. Truth is, most people are capturing in standard definition. They are just bumping up the bit rates to make the overall signal clearer. If you really want to simulcast your HD sporting event in HD smooth streaming for instance, you will need a pure HD signal path from the downlink (assuming the downlink signal is truly HD), to the production switcher, to the matrix switcher, to the distribution amplifier, to the capture card, to the final streaming file output. If you don't have all this...you aren't webcasting in HD.
On demand in HD is even more fun. Do you know how big a one-hour HD file is??? Around 20 Gigs. And what of the resulting stream size? How does a low quality option of a 5 megabit stream sound? Hmmm. That's probably a bigger stream than the bulk of your viewers can handle. What to do! C'mon fiber! C'mon fiber!
The truth is: HD video is possible, but not practical-yet. Now, you can stream a fantastic looking Windows Media stream in 16X9 at around 1.5 Megabits. If you use HD Smooth streaming, you can push a 5 Megabit, 2 Megabit, and several lower quality streams...and the player will dynamically adjust for each viewer. Or, you could do a great job pushing a high bit rate H.264 stream from a Flash Media Encoder. Is this HD? Well, that depends on what your definition...of high definition is.
In 1984 I had my very first media job-as an apprentice sound engineer at "Star City Studios" in Lansing, Michigan-a known hotbed in the media world. My title was a bit misleading, as all I seemed to do was set up microphones and amplifiers for scores of bands from Michigan State University who would come to record their one hit wonders. This, is where I got my first lesson about high definition. That's right. I learned my most important lesson about HD video...in a sound studio.
One day, while plugging in and checking levels on the microphones for a fantastic punk band called "The Obnoxious Pigs", I found the lead singer's level lower than the other members. So, I reached over to the mixing board...and pushed the fader on his channel to the top. The VU meter on that track told me the level was now o.k., but a screaming voice in the background from the real sound engineer told me otherwise. "Dude, you can't get a better signal that way! You have to amplify from the source...THROUGH the chain...to the recorder". I got my very first lesson that would later be called G.I.G.O. during the dot com era. The engineer went on to explain that amplification of a substandard signal enhances the volume of not only the good parts of the original signal...but all the bad parts as well. "You're making a crappy signal...more crappy!" he yelled. Instead, I learned to improve the signal at the source (in this case, the pre-amplifier for the mic)...and then work my way downstream. And so it is with HD streaming video.
If you want to REALLY stream HD video...well, you have to begin with an HD source. What does that mean? Well, loosely...a source video signal that boasts 720 to 1080 scan lines...and is either interlaced or progressive scan. Then...you need to capture that source with a video capture card that is able to handle the size of that incoming signal. These are expensive. You probably don't have one. Truth is, most people are capturing in standard definition. They are just bumping up the bit rates to make the overall signal clearer. If you really want to simulcast your HD sporting event in HD smooth streaming for instance, you will need a pure HD signal path from the downlink (assuming the downlink signal is truly HD), to the production switcher, to the matrix switcher, to the distribution amplifier, to the capture card, to the final streaming file output. If you don't have all this...you aren't webcasting in HD.
On demand in HD is even more fun. Do you know how big a one-hour HD file is??? Around 20 Gigs. And what of the resulting stream size? How does a low quality option of a 5 megabit stream sound? Hmmm. That's probably a bigger stream than the bulk of your viewers can handle. What to do! C'mon fiber! C'mon fiber!
The truth is: HD video is possible, but not practical-yet. Now, you can stream a fantastic looking Windows Media stream in 16X9 at around 1.5 Megabits. If you use HD Smooth streaming, you can push a 5 Megabit, 2 Megabit, and several lower quality streams...and the player will dynamically adjust for each viewer. Or, you could do a great job pushing a high bit rate H.264 stream from a Flash Media Encoder. Is this HD? Well, that depends on what your definition...of high definition is.
Relevance Is Not Irrelevant!
During my years as a writer, editor and producer for CNN, Turner Private Networks and Turner Broadcasting...I learned a lot. The most important lesson had less to do with content, and more to do with the RIGHT content. We were always behind other networks like Fox when it came to the "wow-factor" of our content. We beat them consistently though. One reason was of course that we did everything possible to make sure we broke news faster than the competition. But outside of breaking news, we also consistently beat the competition-because of our focus on relevancy. "How important is this to the audience we're aiming at"? was the perpetual question we asked ourselves. When it comes to streaming media, it may be an important question for you to ask as well.
A poorly produced piece of video content in front of the right audience, is worth more. Today, there are lots of tools that can help you make sure the content you are streaming is relevant to the target audience. I once produced programming for one of the Turner Private Networks. It was health programming that aired in doctor's office waiting rooms, during which Tylenol commercials played for a captive audience with aches and pains. The relevancy of the content was extremely high. And guess who got to charge a premium for the ad space in that programming???
The next time you're struggling with what the right content is for your audience-remember the word relevance. If you pay attention, this little word can increase your ROI, improve your monetization strategy and have a dramatic impact on viral growth in your audience.
A poorly produced piece of video content in front of the right audience, is worth more. Today, there are lots of tools that can help you make sure the content you are streaming is relevant to the target audience. I once produced programming for one of the Turner Private Networks. It was health programming that aired in doctor's office waiting rooms, during which Tylenol commercials played for a captive audience with aches and pains. The relevancy of the content was extremely high. And guess who got to charge a premium for the ad space in that programming???
The next time you're struggling with what the right content is for your audience-remember the word relevance. If you pay attention, this little word can increase your ROI, improve your monetization strategy and have a dramatic impact on viral growth in your audience.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Perception Is Reality
Streaming has taken me to some interesting places in the past. I got a call one night from a little company called Enron (circa 1999). Seems they fancied becoming a CDN. Everyone was doing it you know. They wanted to discuss some “head end optimization” techniques my company had devised that could dramatically enhance the quality of streaming media, regardless of the delivery network. Enron had what it called an “intelligent” network. They told me “One of our jets will pick you up in Atlanta”. Sure enough, a few hours later I was on a private 727 with a posse of Enron executives including some who are infamous today. The food and drink and BS was abundant. As I recall, I didn’t really get the chance to inspire them with the value of my technology. They liked to talk about all of their great ideas instead. I think someone wrote a book a few years later about their secret club: “The Smartest Guys In The Room”.
Last night was another one of those “I never thought I’d see myself doing this” moments. The CEO of an amazing medical technology company was introducing me as a guest speaker at an annual Bariatric Medicine conference in Dallas, Texas. I took the podium and was surprised by how interested all of the surgeons in the audience were-in streaming media. You see, theirs is a solution that offers grossly overweight people what is often a last chance at normalcy. After dozens of failed diets and exercise programs and years engaged in the battle of the bulge, patients turn to these doctors for surgical intervention that appears to have downright dramatic results. The doctors are understandably excited about their solution, and they want to tell the world about it. Hence, their interest in streaming. We talked for about an hour about different ways they can integrate streaming video into their web and marketing efforts. We talked about how video is an amazing way to inject emotion, make a call to action and move the viewer to the next step-something that’s just a lot tougher in a purely text-based environment.
One of the most interesting questions was the simplest: “How do we ‘DO’ streaming video”? To that, I offered that there is indeed a wrong way…and a right way. This is where perception should become a paramount concern. Sure, a surgeon, or any business person for that matter can plug in a web cam, record a bunch of videos, upload them to YouTube-and stick them on their website. But in my mind, that is exactly the “wrong way”. Why? When you handle the production piece yourself, and use free tools to post your online media, your final product will reflect your obvious lack of technical and creative skills and you’ll create a substandard experience for the viewer. You will ultimately create a false perception in the minds of your viewers. It’s similar to the difference between a snapshot…and a professional portrait. One captures an image. The other takes into account light levels, framing and composition and a myriad of other intangible factors. The same is true with the creation of streaming content.
“But we’re doctors…we don’t know, and we don’t WANT to know about all this stuff”! After thanking God for actually being in the company of the smartest guys in the room…I suggested to the doctors that they would be better served to enlist the assistance of a competent partner-versed in all of these intricacies. It just so happens my host at this event is one of the nation’s premier medical-centric interactive agencies. It was all good. I’m reminded of the GIGO statement again though. It’s certainly true when creating content for streaming. As long as you’re going to spend the money to publish and track your streaming content…you may as well make sure that the source content is a true reflection of the quality and focus of your organization and of what you’re really offering. I don’t think a web cam and a homemade backdrop is the right way to do that. Remember: Perception is reality.
Last night was another one of those “I never thought I’d see myself doing this” moments. The CEO of an amazing medical technology company was introducing me as a guest speaker at an annual Bariatric Medicine conference in Dallas, Texas. I took the podium and was surprised by how interested all of the surgeons in the audience were-in streaming media. You see, theirs is a solution that offers grossly overweight people what is often a last chance at normalcy. After dozens of failed diets and exercise programs and years engaged in the battle of the bulge, patients turn to these doctors for surgical intervention that appears to have downright dramatic results. The doctors are understandably excited about their solution, and they want to tell the world about it. Hence, their interest in streaming. We talked for about an hour about different ways they can integrate streaming video into their web and marketing efforts. We talked about how video is an amazing way to inject emotion, make a call to action and move the viewer to the next step-something that’s just a lot tougher in a purely text-based environment.
One of the most interesting questions was the simplest: “How do we ‘DO’ streaming video”? To that, I offered that there is indeed a wrong way…and a right way. This is where perception should become a paramount concern. Sure, a surgeon, or any business person for that matter can plug in a web cam, record a bunch of videos, upload them to YouTube-and stick them on their website. But in my mind, that is exactly the “wrong way”. Why? When you handle the production piece yourself, and use free tools to post your online media, your final product will reflect your obvious lack of technical and creative skills and you’ll create a substandard experience for the viewer. You will ultimately create a false perception in the minds of your viewers. It’s similar to the difference between a snapshot…and a professional portrait. One captures an image. The other takes into account light levels, framing and composition and a myriad of other intangible factors. The same is true with the creation of streaming content.
“But we’re doctors…we don’t know, and we don’t WANT to know about all this stuff”! After thanking God for actually being in the company of the smartest guys in the room…I suggested to the doctors that they would be better served to enlist the assistance of a competent partner-versed in all of these intricacies. It just so happens my host at this event is one of the nation’s premier medical-centric interactive agencies. It was all good. I’m reminded of the GIGO statement again though. It’s certainly true when creating content for streaming. As long as you’re going to spend the money to publish and track your streaming content…you may as well make sure that the source content is a true reflection of the quality and focus of your organization and of what you’re really offering. I don’t think a web cam and a homemade backdrop is the right way to do that. Remember: Perception is reality.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Points Of Failure
Back in 1988, I was a Broadcast Producer with what was then called the Armed Forces Radio & Television Service. I was stationed on a small island in Greece you may have heard of...called Crete. Basically, Crete is the closest thing to Eden in real life. Unless it's winter. In the winter, all of the tourists flew home, the clubs closed, the temperature dropped and we would basically invent ways to amuse ourselves as the winter months passed. Hence, the idea popped into my head "Hey...I should rebuild the engine in my car"!
There was an auto hobby shop on my base, complete with all of the tools someone who knew what they were doing could use...to rebuild or repair just about anything. I had a Chrysler "K" car, arguably the most unassuming automobile ever built. In the summer of '88, I set out on a quest to turn this mild mannered auto...into a muscle car! (There really IS a tie in with your video streaming strategy here...but stay with me...we'll get there).
Every evening, after leaving the television station...I walked down the road to the hobby shop. I greeted Scotty, the manager...donned my overalls, grabbed my government issue tool box and went to work. The next few months were fraught with bloodied knuckles. aching muscles and I even invented a new expletive or two. I pulled the engine, steam cleaned it...disassembled it and made a few "adjustments".
Now every self-respecting hot rodder knows that there is a limit to how much performance improvement you can get out of what they call "bolt on" enhancements. You know...things like fancy headers, and shiny air cleaners and anodized and braided hoses. These are cosmetic improvements to the true muscle car aficionado. If you want to really make a car faster...you have to take more drastic action. First, you mill the head! By reducing the amount of space each cylinder head has...well, you take the first step to increasing compression...which means a more powerful explosion inside the cylinder with every revolution of the crankshaft...which ultimately means...MORE HORSEPOWER! Oh, but I couldn't stop there. My next move was to lope the valves and port the cylinders (or is it port the valves and lope the cylinders?)...then there were new cylinder rings and a myriad of "added value" steps I took...all in an effort to dramatically increase the amount of power I could get out of this decidedly un-powerful auto.
One early Saturday morning, after the engine had been returned and the mess I made of the garage cleaned up...I took my place behind the steering wheel, inserted the key...and with an approving glance and crossed fingers from Scotty...turned the key. It sounded different. It sounded POWERFUL! A quick compression test confirmed that yep, I had indeed...dramatically increased the compression. I had succeeded in turning a "K" car...into an "OK...wanna race?" car! Or, had I? I rolled slowly up to the main street of Gournes...(just south of Iraklion and just north of Hersonisos for those locals tuning in). I looked left, looked right...and cautiously entered the main street. After one last glance to make sure there were no police or ox carts in the vicinity...I applied rapid pressure to the accelerator. I floored it man! Whew! With a plume of blue/white smoke and a squealing that never seemed to end...my K car dug in...and seemed to wrinkle the pavement with an explosive burst of front wheel drive mayhem. I tore down the street...quickly passing 40, then 50, then 60, then 80, then 100 miles an hour. I was just producing a grin of glee thinking of how odd this must look to the local Cretans...when I heard some very confusing noises coming from under the car. There were odd vibrations as well. There was also smoke produced by something other than my tires. It all got worse as I limped back to the shop. After hearing my story, Scotty's hand rested on my shoulder and his sage words doused my fire: "Yep, you made the top end so good...you ruined your bottom end. That drive train ain't made to handle so much torque. You're, well...screwed".
And so it is with streaming my friends. Many prospects I speak with each week are looking to do exactly what I did with my "K" car. They want more power. And they put all of it up front. They invest in an application...or install an encoder and open a live stream...all with no consideration of the weak links in the chain. If you're putting an encoder in your facility, and you want to push out three different streams...each with a bit rate higher than 500K...well guess what...your "bottom end" better be able to handle more than 1.5 Megabits of throughput. (In this case, your bottom end is your amount of dedicated bandwidth available to the outbound signal from the encoder). If you're hoping to handle multiple instances of Flash Media Encoder, each running high bit rate video streams...well then, you need to beef up the processing power on the PC you're running the encoder on. These are just a few, but there are many...weak links. If not considered when you fashion your streaming strategy...they can...well, make odd noises and generate smoke...and ultimately cause you to fail.
So, if you want to build a streaming solution that has lots of horsepower...you have to be wiser than I was in 1988. You have to consider how one piece of your system might negatively impact another piece...BEFORE you step on the accelerator.
I like to imagine that somewhere in the hills of Gournes...on the northern shore of the Island of Crete today...there is a grandfather telling a story about the morning 21 years ago when he heard a horrendous screech, looked out the window...and saw a crazy American flying down the main road in an odd looking car. Or, perhaps he would just webcast his story...to his extended family in the U.S., Japan and Australia. :)
There was an auto hobby shop on my base, complete with all of the tools someone who knew what they were doing could use...to rebuild or repair just about anything. I had a Chrysler "K" car, arguably the most unassuming automobile ever built. In the summer of '88, I set out on a quest to turn this mild mannered auto...into a muscle car! (There really IS a tie in with your video streaming strategy here...but stay with me...we'll get there).
Every evening, after leaving the television station...I walked down the road to the hobby shop. I greeted Scotty, the manager...donned my overalls, grabbed my government issue tool box and went to work. The next few months were fraught with bloodied knuckles. aching muscles and I even invented a new expletive or two. I pulled the engine, steam cleaned it...disassembled it and made a few "adjustments".
Now every self-respecting hot rodder knows that there is a limit to how much performance improvement you can get out of what they call "bolt on" enhancements. You know...things like fancy headers, and shiny air cleaners and anodized and braided hoses. These are cosmetic improvements to the true muscle car aficionado. If you want to really make a car faster...you have to take more drastic action. First, you mill the head! By reducing the amount of space each cylinder head has...well, you take the first step to increasing compression...which means a more powerful explosion inside the cylinder with every revolution of the crankshaft...which ultimately means...MORE HORSEPOWER! Oh, but I couldn't stop there. My next move was to lope the valves and port the cylinders (or is it port the valves and lope the cylinders?)...then there were new cylinder rings and a myriad of "added value" steps I took...all in an effort to dramatically increase the amount of power I could get out of this decidedly un-powerful auto.
One early Saturday morning, after the engine had been returned and the mess I made of the garage cleaned up...I took my place behind the steering wheel, inserted the key...and with an approving glance and crossed fingers from Scotty...turned the key. It sounded different. It sounded POWERFUL! A quick compression test confirmed that yep, I had indeed...dramatically increased the compression. I had succeeded in turning a "K" car...into an "OK...wanna race?" car! Or, had I? I rolled slowly up to the main street of Gournes...(just south of Iraklion and just north of Hersonisos for those locals tuning in). I looked left, looked right...and cautiously entered the main street. After one last glance to make sure there were no police or ox carts in the vicinity...I applied rapid pressure to the accelerator. I floored it man! Whew! With a plume of blue/white smoke and a squealing that never seemed to end...my K car dug in...and seemed to wrinkle the pavement with an explosive burst of front wheel drive mayhem. I tore down the street...quickly passing 40, then 50, then 60, then 80, then 100 miles an hour. I was just producing a grin of glee thinking of how odd this must look to the local Cretans...when I heard some very confusing noises coming from under the car. There were odd vibrations as well. There was also smoke produced by something other than my tires. It all got worse as I limped back to the shop. After hearing my story, Scotty's hand rested on my shoulder and his sage words doused my fire: "Yep, you made the top end so good...you ruined your bottom end. That drive train ain't made to handle so much torque. You're, well...screwed".
And so it is with streaming my friends. Many prospects I speak with each week are looking to do exactly what I did with my "K" car. They want more power. And they put all of it up front. They invest in an application...or install an encoder and open a live stream...all with no consideration of the weak links in the chain. If you're putting an encoder in your facility, and you want to push out three different streams...each with a bit rate higher than 500K...well guess what...your "bottom end" better be able to handle more than 1.5 Megabits of throughput. (In this case, your bottom end is your amount of dedicated bandwidth available to the outbound signal from the encoder). If you're hoping to handle multiple instances of Flash Media Encoder, each running high bit rate video streams...well then, you need to beef up the processing power on the PC you're running the encoder on. These are just a few, but there are many...weak links. If not considered when you fashion your streaming strategy...they can...well, make odd noises and generate smoke...and ultimately cause you to fail.
So, if you want to build a streaming solution that has lots of horsepower...you have to be wiser than I was in 1988. You have to consider how one piece of your system might negatively impact another piece...BEFORE you step on the accelerator.
I like to imagine that somewhere in the hills of Gournes...on the northern shore of the Island of Crete today...there is a grandfather telling a story about the morning 21 years ago when he heard a horrendous screech, looked out the window...and saw a crazy American flying down the main road in an odd looking car. Or, perhaps he would just webcast his story...to his extended family in the U.S., Japan and Australia. :)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Lights, Camera, Action! Not So Fast...
The first live television production I was involved in was a local cable access call in show on the campus of Michigan State University in 1982. The production quality left a lot to be desired...but I'll never forget the sense of awe I had at seeing the technical director fade up from black on his little Grass Valley 400 production switcher...and then seeing video of me magically appear on monitors around the studio. A few moments later, the phone began to ring. The signal was beaming out...and we were garnering immediate feedback via inbound questions from viewers around campus.
This picture is often what corporate streamers have in mind as they ready for their first live webcasting experience. Ultimately though, streaming can be a bit more difficult than television. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Your video and audio must be converted to a digital format before it can be webcast. To make this happen, you have to employ an encoder at the venue where the camera and microphone are. There are software encoders. There are hardware encoders. They all do the same thing-turn your source media into a format that is appropriate for distribution on the Internet. Flash and Windows Media are the most popular streaming formats. Both companies offer free software encoders that you can use to properly "capture" your source media.
2. Feedback is generally not immediate. Because your "signal" is traveling as a series of packets of information...which must be viewed in order by your audience...latency is inherent in webcasting. That latency is the reason why live webcasting can be more challenging than broadcast television-because those packets don't all take the same amount of time to reach each viewer. In fact, it is possible that during a live webcast originating from New York City...a viewer in Richmond, Virginia could experience more latency than a viewer in San Jose, California. Of course, a CDN (Content Delivery Network) can circumvent much of this latency...but not all. Where latency is concerned, streaming is most different from television because an action occurring on camera during a live webcast may be witnessed by many viewers at completely different times. When Simon makes a snide remark on American Idol...all of America sees it happen at generally the same moment...that's because there is fairly consistent latency in broadcasting. Not so with streaming. Ultimately though, with a little planning...the impact of this phenomena can be reduced. Rather than using phones for that feedback from the audience for instance...it may be smart to employ a chat client adjacent to your video screen. To further reduce confusion among viewers...it might be smart to appoint a single "moderator" to receive questions via chat and in turn feed them to the speaker.
3. Simpler is better. All of those flashy motion graphics and visually explosive animation elements that are so prevalent on broadcast television today...won't improve your streaming program. They are what I like to call "high information elements"...elaborate motion graphics...camera movement (abrupt pans, tilts or zooms) are all things you should keep out of your live webcast. Simply put: The more motion you have...the more pixelated the result. Simple 15 frame dissolves are about the only effect I like to see in a webcast. Of course there are exceptions. If you're lucky enough to be propagating a 3 Megabit Windows Media stream to a limited number of board rooms around the country, and you're using a CDN...these television style visual elements will have little negative impact.
Finally, it's important to remind you to "measure twice...and cut once". Like any good live television program, a live webcast should be rehearsed multiple times prior to your scheduled day and time. Technical issues like "how bad is our latency among the different viewing locations"?, "does that 500K stream really look good enough"?, and "how long do those chat questions take to get back to our moderator"? can all be dealt with prior to the live webcast. In this regard, webcasting is not at all different than broadcast television. Break a leg!
This picture is often what corporate streamers have in mind as they ready for their first live webcasting experience. Ultimately though, streaming can be a bit more difficult than television. Here are a few reasons why:
1. Your video and audio must be converted to a digital format before it can be webcast. To make this happen, you have to employ an encoder at the venue where the camera and microphone are. There are software encoders. There are hardware encoders. They all do the same thing-turn your source media into a format that is appropriate for distribution on the Internet. Flash and Windows Media are the most popular streaming formats. Both companies offer free software encoders that you can use to properly "capture" your source media.
2. Feedback is generally not immediate. Because your "signal" is traveling as a series of packets of information...which must be viewed in order by your audience...latency is inherent in webcasting. That latency is the reason why live webcasting can be more challenging than broadcast television-because those packets don't all take the same amount of time to reach each viewer. In fact, it is possible that during a live webcast originating from New York City...a viewer in Richmond, Virginia could experience more latency than a viewer in San Jose, California. Of course, a CDN (Content Delivery Network) can circumvent much of this latency...but not all. Where latency is concerned, streaming is most different from television because an action occurring on camera during a live webcast may be witnessed by many viewers at completely different times. When Simon makes a snide remark on American Idol...all of America sees it happen at generally the same moment...that's because there is fairly consistent latency in broadcasting. Not so with streaming. Ultimately though, with a little planning...the impact of this phenomena can be reduced. Rather than using phones for that feedback from the audience for instance...it may be smart to employ a chat client adjacent to your video screen. To further reduce confusion among viewers...it might be smart to appoint a single "moderator" to receive questions via chat and in turn feed them to the speaker.
3. Simpler is better. All of those flashy motion graphics and visually explosive animation elements that are so prevalent on broadcast television today...won't improve your streaming program. They are what I like to call "high information elements"...elaborate motion graphics...camera movement (abrupt pans, tilts or zooms) are all things you should keep out of your live webcast. Simply put: The more motion you have...the more pixelated the result. Simple 15 frame dissolves are about the only effect I like to see in a webcast. Of course there are exceptions. If you're lucky enough to be propagating a 3 Megabit Windows Media stream to a limited number of board rooms around the country, and you're using a CDN...these television style visual elements will have little negative impact.
Finally, it's important to remind you to "measure twice...and cut once". Like any good live television program, a live webcast should be rehearsed multiple times prior to your scheduled day and time. Technical issues like "how bad is our latency among the different viewing locations"?, "does that 500K stream really look good enough"?, and "how long do those chat questions take to get back to our moderator"? can all be dealt with prior to the live webcast. In this regard, webcasting is not at all different than broadcast television. Break a leg!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Is It Unicast...or Multicast?
In the latter part of the last century (just feels kind of neat to say that-I'm actually referring to the year 1999), my company was involved in fairly extensive testing of live streaming via multicast distribution. I remember seeing the same 1.5 Megabit MPEG-1 stream playing off of an SGI server to dozens of PC screens simultaneously. Given that the intranet was a 10 Mbit LAN...this was impressive to say the least. The possibilities were exciting. Why? Well, to understand that, you need a primer on the inherent difference between Unicast and Multicast distribution of streaming media.
Unicast is the most common distribution method even today. It is a "one to one" method. For each PC accessing the stream, the bandwidth is compounded. As an example, if I were serving a 1.5 Megabit stream...and 10 PC's in an office sharing a T1 line tuned in simultaneously...well, the experience would certainly not be "like TV". Since every connection would require it's own individual 1.5 Mbit stream...all viewers would fall victim to simple math. The network would be choked.
Enter Multicast distribution. Multicast is a "one to many" distribution method wherein the source stream is simply replicated by routers on the network. Instead of compounding bandwidth for each viewer, the viewers simply "tune in" to the same 1.5 Mbit stream. Think of it as a broadcast on television. The difference is, that your viewers need to all be members of a "multicast group". Sounds simple and obviously desirable. But...there are security issues that have precluded the method becoming common place on the Internet. I'm certainly not qualified to explain in granular detail what those issues are. Just Google "multicast security issues" and you'll find many expert opinions.
Here's an analogy that might help: Imagine Unicast video of a corporate presentation being streamed to 20 viewers, each of whom have their own private TV screen and headphones on. Now, picture them in the middle of a room surrounded by passers by. Even though everyone in the room is in close proximity...they can't really see or hear the message well. Now, picture a video message streaming to a big screen in front of those same 20 viewers. No headphones this time, just big fat Bose surround-sound speakers. This time, everyone in the room can see and hear the message. While the video and audio are of a better quality...the message gets to anyone who happens to be in the room.
So, how do you take advantage of the network conservation benefit of IP Multicast while overcoming the obvious security risks that I have certainly over-simplified above? Well...
Fast forward to this century! It is my belief that there will be explosive growth and adoption of IP Multicast technology, especially by enterprise customers. There are a handful of companies who are making it possible to "multicast enable" your network so it provides the network benefits while reducing or eliminating the security risks.
You will still need publishing software, head-end capture hardware and many of the pieces and parts already used for Unicast streaming. But instead of your streams navigating a "contention based collision domain" to get to viewers...they will travel an easier, less congested path. Consider IP Multicast as an HOV lane on the information superhighway!
Unicast is the most common distribution method even today. It is a "one to one" method. For each PC accessing the stream, the bandwidth is compounded. As an example, if I were serving a 1.5 Megabit stream...and 10 PC's in an office sharing a T1 line tuned in simultaneously...well, the experience would certainly not be "like TV". Since every connection would require it's own individual 1.5 Mbit stream...all viewers would fall victim to simple math. The network would be choked.
Enter Multicast distribution. Multicast is a "one to many" distribution method wherein the source stream is simply replicated by routers on the network. Instead of compounding bandwidth for each viewer, the viewers simply "tune in" to the same 1.5 Mbit stream. Think of it as a broadcast on television. The difference is, that your viewers need to all be members of a "multicast group". Sounds simple and obviously desirable. But...there are security issues that have precluded the method becoming common place on the Internet. I'm certainly not qualified to explain in granular detail what those issues are. Just Google "multicast security issues" and you'll find many expert opinions.
Here's an analogy that might help: Imagine Unicast video of a corporate presentation being streamed to 20 viewers, each of whom have their own private TV screen and headphones on. Now, picture them in the middle of a room surrounded by passers by. Even though everyone in the room is in close proximity...they can't really see or hear the message well. Now, picture a video message streaming to a big screen in front of those same 20 viewers. No headphones this time, just big fat Bose surround-sound speakers. This time, everyone in the room can see and hear the message. While the video and audio are of a better quality...the message gets to anyone who happens to be in the room.
So, how do you take advantage of the network conservation benefit of IP Multicast while overcoming the obvious security risks that I have certainly over-simplified above? Well...
Fast forward to this century! It is my belief that there will be explosive growth and adoption of IP Multicast technology, especially by enterprise customers. There are a handful of companies who are making it possible to "multicast enable" your network so it provides the network benefits while reducing or eliminating the security risks.
You will still need publishing software, head-end capture hardware and many of the pieces and parts already used for Unicast streaming. But instead of your streams navigating a "contention based collision domain" to get to viewers...they will travel an easier, less congested path. Consider IP Multicast as an HOV lane on the information superhighway!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
So, You Want To Stream Inside Your Firewall? Good Luck.
"We have to host and stream this stuff inside our firewall". I hear that statement frequently from prospects in the educational and corporate spaces. Usually the requirement stems from paranoia that their streaming content would fall into the wrong hands and compromise their integrity as an institution or business...or give their competitor an upper hand. From the way they describe the importance of securing their streams, you'd think there were an unruly band of "stream pirates" floating just outside their firewall...waiting to pounce on any and all accessible content and use it against the content creator. While I personally believe that those pirates more interested in the next "Iron Man" movie than they are in this month's "Accountability In The Workplace" pesentation, I can't completely dismiss their fears. After all, it's not MY content.
Yes, it's possible to host and stream your content within your own network...but you better have one heck of a network!
Streaming is a bandwidth-intensive process. Unless your corporate network is "multicast enabled" from end to end (which creates entirely different security risks), you'll have to propagate your content using Unicast, or "point to point" distribution. This means that everyone wanting to watch a live webcast on your network will compound the bandwidth utilized for the event. Say you have a 10 Megabit LAN, or even a Gigabit LAN. In either case, it's a simple mathematical reality that at some point...you run the risk of bringing your network to it's knees with your DIY streaming efforts. Simply put: There are only so many concurrent unicast viewers that your network can support. This weakness becomes more obvious during live webcasting of course, but also holds true for on-demand webcasting.
Just because you CAN host your streams internally, doesn't mean you SHOULD. By employing an external CDN (Content Delivery Network), you remove the above mentioned burden from your own network and place it on the shoulders of one that is designed specifically for bandwidth-intensive content like streaming media.
There are ways to make your streams more secure even if you host and distribute your content on a CDN. Unfortunately, the business leaders in your organization often have a picture in their minds-it's a picture of a walled fortress. Inside the walls is where they want their streaming to happen. Outside are the bad guys-those "streampirates" mentioned earlier. Overcoming this limited view requires education, and lots of questions. I like to start with these:
-What is the reason for your desire to stream on your own network? It may be purely financial or it may be due to a senior manager seeing a video-driven quarterly report show up on YouTube.
-What LEVEL of security would make decision makers feel....well, secure? Are they most concerned with your content being pirated, with your network being compromised or just with unauthorized viewership of your content?
-What is the technical ability of your network when it comes to streaming? If you have a satellite office with 100 folks on a shared T1 and you want them to tune in to a quarterly live webcast from the home office...ugh, we should talk. If it's a 500K stream, your T1 is only going to handle 3 or 4 concurrent viewers before it fails.
There are ways to enlist the power of a CDN without exposing the soft white underbelly of your organizations network. Domain level security, IP "allow/deny" lists and even Token Security can be used to dramatically limit unauthorized access to your streaming content.
Ultimately, this boils down to a necessary "cost/benefit" analysis. While you may gain a sense of security from internal hosting and distribution of streaming content, you may lose control, quality and oodles of network capacity. Another thing to consider is that those "streampirates" may actually be figments of your imagination anyway!
Yes, it's possible to host and stream your content within your own network...but you better have one heck of a network!
Streaming is a bandwidth-intensive process. Unless your corporate network is "multicast enabled" from end to end (which creates entirely different security risks), you'll have to propagate your content using Unicast, or "point to point" distribution. This means that everyone wanting to watch a live webcast on your network will compound the bandwidth utilized for the event. Say you have a 10 Megabit LAN, or even a Gigabit LAN. In either case, it's a simple mathematical reality that at some point...you run the risk of bringing your network to it's knees with your DIY streaming efforts. Simply put: There are only so many concurrent unicast viewers that your network can support. This weakness becomes more obvious during live webcasting of course, but also holds true for on-demand webcasting.
Just because you CAN host your streams internally, doesn't mean you SHOULD. By employing an external CDN (Content Delivery Network), you remove the above mentioned burden from your own network and place it on the shoulders of one that is designed specifically for bandwidth-intensive content like streaming media.
There are ways to make your streams more secure even if you host and distribute your content on a CDN. Unfortunately, the business leaders in your organization often have a picture in their minds-it's a picture of a walled fortress. Inside the walls is where they want their streaming to happen. Outside are the bad guys-those "streampirates" mentioned earlier. Overcoming this limited view requires education, and lots of questions. I like to start with these:
-What is the reason for your desire to stream on your own network? It may be purely financial or it may be due to a senior manager seeing a video-driven quarterly report show up on YouTube.
-What LEVEL of security would make decision makers feel....well, secure? Are they most concerned with your content being pirated, with your network being compromised or just with unauthorized viewership of your content?
-What is the technical ability of your network when it comes to streaming? If you have a satellite office with 100 folks on a shared T1 and you want them to tune in to a quarterly live webcast from the home office...ugh, we should talk. If it's a 500K stream, your T1 is only going to handle 3 or 4 concurrent viewers before it fails.
There are ways to enlist the power of a CDN without exposing the soft white underbelly of your organizations network. Domain level security, IP "allow/deny" lists and even Token Security can be used to dramatically limit unauthorized access to your streaming content.
Ultimately, this boils down to a necessary "cost/benefit" analysis. While you may gain a sense of security from internal hosting and distribution of streaming content, you may lose control, quality and oodles of network capacity. Another thing to consider is that those "streampirates" may actually be figments of your imagination anyway!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
So, Why Not Just Use YouTube?
This is a YouTube video. It was uploaded and published for free. But as my father used to say "Nothing's free boy". Let me echo his sentiments for you: Nothing...is free!
YouTube is great. Don't get me wrong. If you're an indie band wanting to upload and share your latest home-grown music video, there is not a better (read cheaper) approach. But if you're a professional organization hoping to use YouTube or similar free services to effectively convert, distribute and track your online media assets...there are several reasons to look elsewhere. Here are just three:
First-a free service doesn't allow you to protect your brand. It's said you're known by the company you keep, and with free services, you don't dictate who your company is. After viewing one of your corporate training or best practices videos...the viewer could be fed suggestions to view inappropriate content. Do you really want to risk the viability of your brand to save a few bucks on streaming?
Second-a free service offers you sub standard video and audio quality. They are going to provide your streaming files in as low a bit-rate as they can get by with. After all, you're not paying for it!
Third-a free service isn't going to pick up the phone at 3 a.m. on Sunday when you're having a serious problem with one of your streaming video assets.
I've always believed there is a measurable difference between up front price and the true cost of just about anything. If price is your ONLY consideration...well, it makes sense to try a free service. But if you're using online video as part of your business...I would urge you to remember that you get what you pay for.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Latency! Delayed Gratification In Live Webcasting.
I've produced literally thousands of hours of live television for various networks in my life. No matter where it's done, "live" always comes with a whole new set of concerns...even today. Because your signal is being exposed to the audience in real time, the margin for error is removed. We used to call it "Live....without a net!"
The same is unfortunately true and even magnified when it comes to live web casting. And it is the distribution method itself that injects one frustrating symptom: latency.
Now with Satelite distribution there may be a quarter-second latency inherent in the broadcast. This means that a viewer on the west coast of the U.S., watching a "live" broadcast from the east coast...will suffer a delay of about one fourth of one second. The delay is fairly consist ant for any viewer watching from a similar distance.
Enter live webcasting. Now, the signal is propagated over a distributed network of servers, routers and various other connections. There are weak links in the distribution chain...often in the last mile, or even in the last few feet (the home network). There are also technological speed bumps like a substandard PC. At any rate...with live webcasting there are MANY things that can impact how much delay is injected into the experience. As a result, someone watching a webcast in Los Angeles that is originating from New York may actually have a better viewing experience and suffer less delay...thank someone in Richmond, Virginia.
Ultimately, my question for clients who say they need "live" webcasting is this: "How LIVE do you need it to be?!"
The same is unfortunately true and even magnified when it comes to live web casting. And it is the distribution method itself that injects one frustrating symptom: latency.
Now with Satelite distribution there may be a quarter-second latency inherent in the broadcast. This means that a viewer on the west coast of the U.S., watching a "live" broadcast from the east coast...will suffer a delay of about one fourth of one second. The delay is fairly consist ant for any viewer watching from a similar distance.
Enter live webcasting. Now, the signal is propagated over a distributed network of servers, routers and various other connections. There are weak links in the distribution chain...often in the last mile, or even in the last few feet (the home network). There are also technological speed bumps like a substandard PC. At any rate...with live webcasting there are MANY things that can impact how much delay is injected into the experience. As a result, someone watching a webcast in Los Angeles that is originating from New York may actually have a better viewing experience and suffer less delay...thank someone in Richmond, Virginia.
Ultimately, my question for clients who say they need "live" webcasting is this: "How LIVE do you need it to be?!"
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
No, I'm Not At NAB
For only the second time in my professional career...I'm skipping NAB. Know what? It feels good. For some 13 years I made the annual sojourn to Sin City to either hawk the latest gadget or find it. In the late 90's, it got really fun, as I joined thousands of other "Business Development" gurus in a partnering frenzy. One of my partners was a little company called Enron. Yep. I rode in the jets, attended the catered lunches...even watched Earnhardt qualify at Daytona from the air conditioned comfort of the Enron bus. Those were the days. For the first half of this decade, I saw NAB solely as a selling opportunity. THE selling opportunity, contributing to fully one third of my annual revenue. We would swoop in, stake our claim and return worse for the wear due to too many late night "negotiating" sessions around a craps table.
If you ever want to witness the application of the actual lubricant that enables the wheels of commerce to turn within the media technology world...you simply must attend NAB.
Best NAB survival tip: Before falling to sleep at night (or in the morning)...take that little ice bucket they put in every hotel room...fill it with cold water...and pour it directly on the carpet surrounding your bed. You see, Vegas is in the dessert. And unless you're keen on waking with a nose bleed every morning...you need humidity. Problem is: There isn't any! So this trick works all through the night to keep you comfy. In the morning, the carpet will be as dry as...well, the dessert!
If you ever want to witness the application of the actual lubricant that enables the wheels of commerce to turn within the media technology world...you simply must attend NAB.
Best NAB survival tip: Before falling to sleep at night (or in the morning)...take that little ice bucket they put in every hotel room...fill it with cold water...and pour it directly on the carpet surrounding your bed. You see, Vegas is in the dessert. And unless you're keen on waking with a nose bleed every morning...you need humidity. Problem is: There isn't any! So this trick works all through the night to keep you comfy. In the morning, the carpet will be as dry as...well, the dessert!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
