What Broadcasting Teaches About Web 'Mindshare'

Yes, I would think that openenss is the way to go. Don't restrict content to one geographical area, one set of subscribers, etc, etc.

So why are there restriction at all? Yes, contracts must be sancrosact. But sometimes enough is enough.

We are becoming a world of attorneys running behind the scenes at corporations, (and in front of the scenes in governement.)

I suspect coporate managers might be a bit more liberal minded than we might expect, but enter the attorney who will warn that you just can't let everyone see your content anywhere anytime. "Let me draw up a contract agreement for you an negotiate some terms for you.''

I've been told that the NFB's statistics people are working on a blog post about international usage of the site. Because it's not up yet, I don't have the numbers. But if you check http://blog.nfb.ca/ in the next couple days, there should be answers.

Ms Coon

Quite an interesting piece, I must say!

Can you please share the stats of CNFB access, especially from outside Canada? Its that statistic that establishes that the number of hits are really impressive, from international broadcasting perspective.

"Proxy server".  Give yourself a UK IP if you want to watch "restricted" broadcasts.  Or any other country's for that matter.  I've done it before to see shows I've wanted to see-- it's fairly easy.

More people selse complained about the BBC IPlayer.  I love Top Gear and it really angers me that I have to wait until BBC America airs the new season of Top Gear in order for me to see it.  The other alternative is to go to site where I can watch it.  Media companies need to realize that they are losing Ad revenues by chasing away views.

Terry Sweeney:  "The larger problem isn't public broadcasting ignoring potential ads, it's the often onerous controls that content owners place on how and where their inventory can be used/broadcasted/consumed."

I think the point of the post goes beyond broadcasting -- the idea of letting loose who can see your work is directed at everyone. 

For that matter, a lot of content-owners are better off with a creative commons license along the lines of "Give me credit and we're cool".  The little ones really need to get known and have their stuff seen by as many as possible. 

Even the big, well-known ones if they do it properly (turning fandom into free advertising)

The times seem to be pointing towards releasing control -- partially because good things can come of it, and partially because that control is getting harder and harder to maintain.

Well, your source sounds a lot more definitive than wikipedia - even if they both turn out to be wrong.

Just pulling your leg on the name thing.

It's not just public broadcasting. Anyone who actually has ownership of content (TV networks who produce their own programming, for example) could potentially un-block it. That's where Pandora is unlucky. They rely on others to provide content, which ultimately takes the power to decide out of their hands.

International broadcasting is just a useful parable to illustrate the importance that mindshare has traditionally had. IP blocking by content owners tells the world outside their immediate sphere that they don't want international attention. That's an odd thing for a money-making enterprise to say. Closing markets isn't a sensible way to make money.

And yes, there are always licensing issues to talk about. A network may have existing deals to sell their programs to broadcasters in other countries. But those deals really don't yield much. A Canadian network can purchase an American program for as little as $60,000. And that whole $60,000 is extra, because costs have generally already been recouped domestically. American networks could reserve the right to show their programs, without region blocks, on their own sites, in addition to licensing to other networks. It's feasible because they have more power in this particular situation than do the rebroadcasters. Serving shows online (the ones they produce and have rights to, of course) could be an extra source of revenue for networks producing their own content.

In fact, it turns out that I'm more wrong than we both think. My previous information about the start date of Radio Moscow (now known as Voice of Russia) came from International radio broadcasting: the limits of the limitless medium by D.R. Browne (I think. The stack of books from which the dates came is no longer in front of me.), a reasonably well cited book, if we're to believe Google Scholar. Browne, for his part, is not actually wrong. Voice of Russia traces its beginnings to October 29 1929. However, according to Victor Kuprianov, writing in the autumn 1960 installment of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (known at the time simply as the Journal of Broadcasting), Radio Moscow actually had its first foreign language broadcast in autumn 1920, targeting Germany. The service was not continued. Foreign language broadcasting started again in 1927 and was intermittent until the previously mentioned October 1929 start date of what we now know as Voice of Russia. 

All this is to say mea culpa. While Voice of Russia chooses to trace its own history to October 1929, I fully understand that there may have been some service prior to that date (and even as far back as 1920!). That fount of all human knowledge, Wikipedia, backs up your statement about the 1922 start date. I only wish they had a citation for it. I'd be very interested to read about the earlier history of the subject. If you happen to know of any articles on the subject, I'd love to read them.

As for the spelling of my name, I believe we discussed it (and my reasons) in the thread below my piece about the Open Colour Standard.  

Online services like Pandora would love to expand mindshare beyond US borders, but the terms of its content licensing agreements require it to do the sort of IP-blocking you describe to non-US users. The larger problem isn't public broadcasting ignoring potential ads, it's the often onerous controls that content owners place on how and where their inventory can be used/broadcasted/consumed. I'm not sure broadcasting teaches us much of anything about mindshare, quite frankly.