This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

Montgomery, James. "OnMedia Panel: Monetizing Online Video." Www.paulallen.net. 30 Jan. 2008. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://www.paulallen.net/onmedia-panel-monetizing-online-video/>.  

This video talks about Social Media and the struggle it has been to monetize it. According to the article, ComScore rates YouTube as the second largest search engine next to Google. However, the video states, it does not have a solid monetization model. Based on the video, apparently YouTube users don’t care what’s going on around them - they only want to watch a video. These users approach advertisements much like they do on television, by either flipping to another channel or leaving the room until the ad is finished. The article also talks about Twitter. They throw around the idea “What if Twitter would start charging for their usage?” Since Twitter recently announced that Pro accounts are coming this year, but has yet to disclose what they consist of, this seems like an ever more poignant question to answer. Lastly, the video talks about Facebook. It states that “contextual advertising on Facebook is based on the freely submitted data Facebook users provide” and that Facebook’s model is more accurate than a search engine’s technique of ad targeting.

I found source to be particularly interesting as it approaches social media much in the same way I do. I do not exclude YouTube (and also Hulu.com as well) even if it is an entertainment medium as they have social element to them as well. I also felt that this source was interesting as it discussed current trends like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube (the latter being a little old in the fast paced world of the internet monetization). I believe that this source will be a foundation text within my research paper and want to delve deeper into each of the monetization models for each of these businesses. The question the article addresses is a important one for every serious company to consider.

SES NY: Will Monetization Models for Social Media Ever Come? Www.webpronews.com. 8 Apr. 2009 <http://videos.webpronews.com/2009/04/03/ses-ny-will-monetization-models-for-social-media-ever-come/>.

    The Newsweek article focuses on Hulu.com and its “formula” for success. Instead of the long commercial breaks that television audiences have become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break. According to studies done by the website, fewer ads make the ones on the site more memorable, allowing the site to charge higher prices for each ad unit. Hulu.com conducted a customer survey with 18,000 respondents and they said that the site had the right amount of ads given the free price of viewing; 17 percent said there was less advertising than they expected. The survey also found a 22 percent bump in advertiser message association and a 28 percent increase in intent to purchase among users. Additionally, the article states that users are encouraged to click buttons indicating whether they like or dislike each ad they see.  As they collect more and more data, the site personalizes the ad experience for each individual user.
    I felt that this article is a great source to use within my paper and for my presentation as it focuses on one of the main websites my project is on: Hulu.com. The site is a joint-venture between Fox and NBC that brings TV shows from both channels to the web to view for free with an ad supported monetization system. The site also boasts full length films from many distributors including Universal, Fox and Disney. This is a great article as it shows one ad supported system that “works” online. Although the system makes markedly less money that TV on the set, it’s better than the alternative way individuals would gain this content online: Piracy.

Stetler, Brian. "Web Site?s Formula for Success: TV Content With Fewer Ads." The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2008. 04 Apr. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=hulu%20advertising&st=cse>.  

This is a nice article by Wired magazine that talks about the future of Twitter.com and one of the monetization systems that it is going to put in place. In the article it states that the company is preparing to create commercial accounts where corporations and other types of businesses could pay a fee to receive an enhanced version of Twitter. The traditional use of the website is a free service that allows people to send short, text message length updates to their network of friends, or as they are called on the site “Followers”. The Wired article also states that Twitter recently closed a round of venture capital financing “pegged at $35 million by media reports, following two earlier funding rounds totaling $20 million.” Although Twitter initially planned to begin seeking revenue streams in 2010, the article mentions that the company recently decided to accelerate the schedule and find ways to monetize its service this year.
    This article is a very good account of one of the methods that one of the emerging giants of social media is doing to monetize its service and make money for its investors. The commercial or premium account model is one that many other websites use to make money. How successful that particular method will work for a site like Twitter is yet to be seen. However, it should be noted that Twitter is extremely unique as it can do real time searches of a mass of individual’s opinions at any given time. Perhaps companies would shell out the cash to be given analytics of their own to study the chatter on twitter.
    Additionally, I also heard of other pay-to-play programs popping up on Twitter from Microsoft and CBD. ExecTweets and MarchTweetness were two ventures that tested out the waters for Twitter being a paid service. It’s too soon to tell the real success of the programs, but I personally believe that may be useful.

Rueters. "Twitter to Offer Business Accounts, at a Price." Wired News. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/03/reuters_us_twitter>. 

   This article is simply a Wikipedia article that talks about Online advertising as a whole. I wanted to include it in my Annotated Bibliography as it is probably one of the best sources to learn about such a new advertising/marketing phenomenon. As we learned in class, Wikipedia is often more accurate than other encyclopedias because of it is online, editable, and under shared license. Some of the subjects the article touches on are the competitive advantage of online advertising over traditional advertising, purchasing variations, E-mail advertising and Affiliate marketing. The article also talks about two types of advertising Hulu.com and Facebook utilize: Contextual advertising and behavioral targeting.
    I felt that this article was actually very informative and helped to broaden my understanding of the online advertising world. The concepts within it are directly applicable to websites that I will be using for case studies in my research paper. The monetization models of YouTube.com, Hulu.com, and Facebook.com are all talked about in depth with sources there as well for additional information if I am so inclined to do so. Basically this article will serve as the framework to help me better understand the principles of advertising online.

"Online Advertising." Wikipedia. 5 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising>.  

    This article is about how Hulu.com is struggling to find advertisers for its On-Demand video streaming website. The article states that the site is facing many problems, including hesitant advertisers, partners that provide entertainment content but will not negotiate prices, and parent companies concerned that the site might cannibalize their own competing media. The article states that Hulu.com is under pressure from content providers, and it has gone back on its pledge to allow anyone to syndicate its content anywhere on the Web. One analyst stated that the site is struggling to find ads for many of its videos. "What we've seen is rapid growth in consumption, but the advertising isn't keeping up," he says. "I don't think that anyone can say they are impervious to the macroeconomic environment, but we're still hugely optimistic about our ability to monetize the service." Based on numbers from Hulu.com, the site has only sold about 60% of its ad inventory. The rest of the remaining space is filled with public service announcements.
    I thought this article was another good one I could sue as a counterpoint to the success that Hulu.com has found in recent months. Although the site has millions of viewers daily, advertisers are still hesitant in putting their money into the still emerging market of online advertising. It should be noted that YouTube.com also has problems making money and still does not have an efficient advertising based system to monetize itself sufficiently on. Having small commercials play online is a old-fashioned approach to persuading consumers in this new medium, and Hulu.com will live or die by this fact.

Macmillan, Douglas. "Hulu Attracts Crowds but Not Ads - BusinessWeek." BusinessWeek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090330_571175.htm>.  

    This article was extremely interesting as it outlines the reasons why advertising is not working extremely well on the internet. The first reason the author states is that “People don’t trust ads.” The goes on to state that the internet is at it most basic level a much different vehicle for spreading information than other mediums like television or newspapers. He then goes on to say that “People don’t want ads.”  As individuals watch content, the author remarks “when is the time people get up to get a snack, during their show or the commercials (paraphrased).” Lastly, he states that “People don’t need ads.”  He supports his argument by stating that the way people buy online is different than offline. He states that reviews take much more priority when people decide what they are buying  than advertisements online.
     I love this article as it provides a skeptics opinion on the future of online advertising. It supports my probably hypothesis of my research paper: traditional advertising will never survive online. People go online only to find content, so even the ads need to be tailored to their preferences to be able to keep eyeballs. After reading an article like this, it makes me feel that monetization systems like those utilized by Joss Whedon (Dr. Horrible) and Facebook (behavioral targeting) will be the future of the medium. Individuals need to feel that they are not being forced to buy anything, and instead should come to thier own colclusions online. By allowing consumers to feel this way, companies can better thier brand image as well as thier clout in the online sphere.

 Clemons, Eric. "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet." TechCrunch. 22 Mar. 2009. 6 Apr. 2009 <www.techcrunch.com>.

          This article talks about Biz Stone, one of the co-founders of twitter, and his hesitance to monetize the service. Other major Web 2.0 companies such as Facebook and YouTube who came before the relatively new company have struggled to find stable streams of revenue as they rushed into building their audience first and then find their source of income later. However, as the article states, these earlier giants have shown that converting eyeballs into money hasn't been easy. The article mentions that Facebook has yet to start generating meaningful amount of profit, and Google has said it has “yet to find the right business model for monetizing YouTube's considerable traffic.” The article infers that Twitter, despite some plans Mr. Stone has, may find itself in the same position. Stone states "How would they respond to us putting ads on the site?" "Are we going to end up pissing them off?"
            A company called Federated Media thought of an idea that creates websites that pull together tweets about a certain topic or by a select group of people. The company is getting corporations to sponsor the sites and will share the ensuing advertising revenue with Twitter. The first site was ExecTweets by Microsoft, a collection of tweets from executives. The second was MarchTweetness, with tweets about the March Madness basketball tournament. I think that this is the best method for monetization for the company and will focus on this during my essay and presentation. Being able to have focused live-streaming information is a new, meaningful way to gain information and I believe people will pay a modest price to be able to do so comfortably.

Gustin, Sam. "Twitter's Business Model? Well, Ummmm..." Wired News. 4 Sept. 2008. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2008/08/portfolio_0804>.

            The article is an interview between Knowledge@Wharton and Joss Whedon, creator of the “Firefly” series and the web-only musical "Dr. Horrible". Dr. Horrible was released on the web in three parts last July and Whedon's plan was to remove the free online versions and sell all three episodes as video downloads through Apple's iTunes Store after a certain amount of time. A week after the series moved to iTunes, it appeared online on Hulu.com. Later, in December, a DVD version became available on Amazon.com. Dr. Horrible utilized various distribution channels and  serves as, according to the article, “something of a case study for marketing independently produced content.” The mini-series cost $200,000 to make from crew and production costs alone and the actors weren’t even paid at first. However, the endeavor ended up making around more than twice the original cost. Whedon stated that he wants what he has done with "Dr. Horrible" to serve as a model for similar original content.
            I am using this source as one of my main texts in my final paper and my presentation. Just as the article states, I want to use “Dr. Horrible” as a case study in the marketing and monetization of independent content online. I find it very interesting that this particular piece of content was able to double its initial investment. The story of Whedon’s online series, and the methods that he used to distribute the content are interesting in the fact that it actually worked. I will definitely use the information I obtained in this lengthy interview to further enrich my paper as it serves as a great example of independent content monetizing itself successfully. Comparing Whedon's work to other ways to monetize entertainment online will be a focus of my presentation and paper.

"Joss Whedon's Plan to Monetize Internet Content (Watch Out, Hollywood) -." Knowledge@Wharton. 08 Apr. 2009 <http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2152>.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->     This “article” is actually a transcript of a live event between a few individuals within the online entertainment industry. The moderator was James Montgomery, CEO of Montgomery & Co. The rest of the panel consisted of John Edwards, CEO of Move Networks,
Adam Berrey, SVP Marketing & Strategy of Brightcove, and Iaain Scholnick, CEO of ImageSpan. In the talk, Adam Berrey stated that are three major segments of content, and different ways to monetize each. I included that particular excerpt of the article here:

1. The highest interest long-form content; you ad sales force can sell sponsorships. But this is a small slice of web audience and content.

2. Next band of content, also often sold direct,

3. Remnant content, either fragmented content, or fragmented audience, or peak demand that you didn’t forecast accurately.

    I like this article as it contains a plethora of information that come straight from industry professionals. The talk focuses on video but the concepts touched upon throughout the transcript apply to other types of monetization as well. I plan on using information within this article chiefly to talk about Hulu.com and YouTube.com. Additionally, I believe that this article would strengthen my argument because I will be able to directly quote industry leaders within my paper. Being able to do this is essential when talking about internet based operations as the industry is usually rife with predictions and misinformation.

Accenture Media and Entertainment. "The Challenge of Change: Perspectives on the future for Content Providers." Accenture Global Content Study 2008. Accenture: 2008.

This report is the result of a market research firm initiative, in which they surveyed 100 entertainment executives to determine their opinions on the future of revenue models based on digital media. The results of the survey show that the ad-based model is the most popular model for the surveyed executives, as opposed to subscription or iTunes-like services. Though the focus in the report seems to be on forms of entertainment other than music media, it provides a successful context for profit-garnering models in digital entertainment. It also reflects the point of view of those that will ultimately be responsible for shaping the way that media is transferred to the consumer (legally) online.

This report represents yet another perspective on successful provision of internet content (without greater legislation). The importance of advertising on maintaining free content on the internet cannot be understated -- many argue that advertising-based models represent the future of music revenue. Ad-based music models are already being put into place: the music-search engine developed by Google in China, for example. The Accenture report is important, therefore, because it provides data and quotes from industry experts that address the longstanding relationship between advertising and entertainment.

Clemons, Eric. "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet." [Weblog Entry.] TechCrunch. 22 Mar 2009. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/). 8 Apr 2009.

    Professor Clemons holds a strong viewpoint: “the expected drop in internet advertising revenues this year was neither unpredictable nor unpredicted, nor was it caused solely by the general recession and the decline in retail sales.”  He places a lot of the blame of the advertising decline on the mere fact that consumers know how to get what they want. The three main reasons he provides for advertising’s imminent failure are: “1. Consumers do not trust advertising, 2. Consumers do not want to view advertising, 3. Consumers do not need advertising.” He proceeds to unravel these statements, arguing that “messages are observed by potential customers who are performing other activities.” Presently, there are only a “few examples of website symbiosis, where community content on one site adds considerable value for another.”
    The argument made by Professor Clemons further complicates my argument. He basically says outright that advertising on the internet is destined for failure. Throughout his blog, he constantly refers to the messages as the problem and how they are “not trusted, not wanted, and not needed.” This does provide a little window of hope for my argument; if banner advertisements could be trusted, then maybe they might have an impact on internet behavior. One way of doing this might be to restrict the vast amounts that are allowed on a particular page. Yes, frequency of a particular advertisement is helpful, but if people are bombarded with various advertisements, they will tend to tune them all out, even the ones that might in fact appeal to them. In addition to decreasing the number of banner advertisements, I think it would be extremely effective to have certain banner advertisements for certain sites. Therefore, you bypass the step of intriguing the consumer, for they are already on that particular website because they have an interest in its content. Therefore, it is up to the content of the banner advertisement to further intrigue the consumer.