Comments on: The Long Tail of TPN – 1600 hours and counting… http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/ Science, atheism, politics, futurism, and a hard dose of the truth. Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:16:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cameron Reilly http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/comment-page-1/#comment-18772 Cameron Reilly Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:08:05 +0000 http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/#comment-18772 "a guy", we had 3298 SEPARATE PODCASTS downloaded in November. I'm saying, if each podcast is, on average, 30 minutes in duration, that's 1649 hours of programming. “a guy”, we had 3298 SEPARATE PODCASTS downloaded in November. I’m saying, if each podcast is, on average, 30 minutes in duration, that’s 1649 hours of programming.

]]> By: a guy http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/comment-page-1/#comment-18750 a guy Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:06:38 +0000 http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/#comment-18750 That math isn't right. Put it like this: if I had a 30 minute podcast that was downloaded 3298 times last month how many hours of programming do I have? It sure isn't 1649... That math isn’t right. Put it like this: if I had a 30 minute podcast that was downloaded 3298 times last month how many hours of programming do I have? It sure isn’t 1649…

]]> By: provokeit http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/comment-page-1/#comment-18393 provokeit Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:05:41 +0000 http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/#comment-18393 I agree that content businesses can scale. I think that VCs just looking at the scale factor are going to be poor guys soon. But let's look at the term 'scale'. What does this *need* to mean - 500,000 users or 50 million users of the content? It's myopic to use the term 'scale' for an all purpose exercise because 'scale' is only going to be relevant to the business model attached to the content delivery. For example, Cam could have a great delivery model and content and scale to another 100 collaborators (providers of content) and the advertising revenue from this could be (only using this an example btw and I don't know Cam's figures) substantial enough with 10,000 constant listeners to drive TPN forward for a long time coming. Or...'scale' could mean 2 million hits a day because the advertising revenue model means that 0.000001 per cent of all users are going to click thru and create revenue for the site. Tagging and bagging terms with models is very dangerous... Conversely, I'm not sure that I agree on the fewer shows/larger audience model. Myself, I am tending to lean more toward the pre/post produced cleaner and engaging content (in the podcast and vidcast space in particular) regardless of numbers and audience size - I don't think that that can be defined in any shape or form. But the quality will define it. And I'm not talking SuperBowl quality and over production but something that has its own consistent brand attached to it. And that brand can be 'folksy' as well; it just needs to be internally established as a content 'brand'. I think that will be the consistent winner in the content space over time. People are becoming more and more attached to content and its original source. Content delivery, just like any medium, can have a brand attachment. And the brand attachment will be the driver, not the scale. I agree that content businesses can scale. I think that VCs just looking at the scale factor are going to be poor guys soon.

But let’s look at the term ‘scale’. What does this *need* to mean – 500,000 users or 50 million users of the content? It’s myopic to use the term ‘scale’ for an all purpose exercise because ‘scale’ is only going to be relevant to the business model attached to the content delivery.

For example, Cam could have a great delivery model and content and scale to another 100 collaborators (providers of content) and the advertising revenue from this could be (only using this an example btw and I don’t know Cam’s figures) substantial enough with 10,000 constant listeners to drive TPN forward for a long time coming.

Or…’scale’ could mean 2 million hits a day because the advertising revenue model means that 0.000001 per cent of all users are going to click thru and create revenue for the site.

Tagging and bagging terms with models is very dangerous…

Conversely, I’m not sure that I agree on the fewer shows/larger audience model.

Myself, I am tending to lean more toward the pre/post produced cleaner and engaging content (in the podcast and vidcast space in particular) regardless of numbers and audience size – I don’t think that that can be defined in any shape or form. But the quality will define it. And I’m not talking SuperBowl quality and over production but something that has its own consistent brand attached to it.

And that brand can be ‘folksy’ as well; it just needs to be internally established as a content ‘brand’.

I think that will be the consistent winner in the content space over time.

People are becoming more and more attached to content and its original source. Content delivery, just like any medium, can have a brand attachment. And the brand attachment will be the driver, not the scale.

]]> By: Hugo http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/comment-page-1/#comment-18391 Hugo Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:39:44 +0000 http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/#comment-18391 Good points Cam. I think it's only going to get harder for newer aggregators to gain stickiness too. New entrants will need to make themselves and their services more portable and universal to have any hope of taking a bite out of the myspaces and youtubes. This will make them appealing at first but severely reduce their stickiness when subsequent generations come knocking. Good points Cam. I think it’s only going to get harder for newer aggregators to gain stickiness too. New entrants will need to make themselves and their services more portable and universal to have any hope of taking a bite out of the myspaces and youtubes. This will make them appealing at first but severely reduce their stickiness when subsequent generations come knocking.

]]> By: Cameron Reilly http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/comment-page-1/#comment-18389 Cameron Reilly Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:23:46 +0000 http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/#comment-18389 Yeah I think they were all about indy stuff back then. Again - they didn't own the content. So the monetization of it was hard. Yeah I think they were all about indy stuff back then. Again – they didn’t own the content. So the monetization of it was hard.

]]> By: Rob Irwin http://noillusionspodcast.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/comment-page-1/#comment-18385 Rob Irwin Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:53:19 +0000 http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/05/the-long-tail-of-tpn-1600-hours-and-counting/#comment-18385 Just on a tangent here... wasn't mp3.com radically different back in '01? For example, I vividly remember having band entries, and songs from my own bands up on mp3.com "back in the day", but then oneday they just nerfed all that content (and I lost some of the only digital copies I had of some material when that happened, but I digress), and the whole business model changed. Just on a tangent here… wasn’t mp3.com radically different back in ’01?

For example, I vividly remember having band entries, and songs from my own bands up on mp3.com “back in the day”, but then oneday they just nerfed all that content (and I lost some of the only digital copies I had of some material when that happened, but I digress), and the whole business model changed.

]]>