Web Analytics Midterm

Thorn Midterm 7500 Final

Not Quite TV

Hulu is a fantastic place. Despite it's limitations, Hulu is significant because of the paradigm shift it represents for mass media content creators. Unlike the music industry that told-the-teacher-style panicked when bandwidth and technology broke the barrier to entry for consumer and creator alike earlier in the decade, television execs have embraced the inevitible irrelevancy of their past business model.

To me, Hulu is poised to serve multiple purposes:

1. Promotion - The site gets the word out about a show in the best way possible: allowing viewers to watch the program.

2. Word of Mouth/Social Networking - Hulu allows viewers to watch shows recommended by friends whether over dinner conversation or from a link from their facebook page. This is a huge plus for the networks. Under the traditional TV model, viewers would have to start watching shows at the next new episode, which may eliminate some people because they can't start at the beginning. On Demand is available now too but Hulu has more options.

3. DVD Sales - My favorite implication of Hulu is the acceptance of giving content away for free now does not mean sacrificing dollars later. For example, if I like 30 Rock enough to watch it on Hulu, I may plunk down $25 for DVD set for myself or as a Christmas gift for someone. This line of thinking relies on one major assumption by studios and networks...

Watching TV on your computer will never replace watching TV on the big, HD flatscreen in your living room.

And I agree with them...until Microsoft integrates a Hulu module on my XBox 360. All bets are off when that happens.

Tweet Search

The Twitter Search function might be the most powerful tool for companies to use. Twitter is simply a worldwide conversation that anybody can eavesdrop on. With the search function, you can hone the eavesdropping to specific topics. It's like listening to conversations in a crowded room with the Whisper2000 if you already knew who was talking about you.

By using the advanced search, interested parties can define the specific parameters to search for a topic among the mass of tweets. The problem is mining the data (isn't that always the problem). The search results are sporadic, lack context and are, likely, high in volume. Analyzing the tweets and exacting the right conclusions is where the real work occurs.

For large brands or specific products, I think the searches might produce easier-to-interpret data. The individual tweets might reflect obvious reactions to a product or be recommendations from one user to another. Conversely, the comments may be negative towards the brand or product. Either way, the conversation should be easily analyzed for data purposes. When these comments are observed during a long period of time, tides of user/public opinion can be discerned, which will prove valuable to companies.

For concepts that lack brand recognition, Twitter search data is more elusive but still functional. I searched the name of my web comic during the default amount of time set by the service. I searched with and without quotation marks for Registered Weapon. Like any search engine, the results without quotation marks were more numerous but mostly off-topic (still fascinating though). You can see my results below with quotation marks:

Three results. Two tweets were relevant. One was not.

There's not much data to analysis needed to draw a few specific conclusions:

1. the search works for finding relevant tweets.

2. Nobody is talking about Registered Weapon today.

I'll search again tomorrow.

Sequential Storytweeting

Twitter could be an intriguing method for storytelling. Think of it as an Information Age, ADD-version of Charles Dickens monthly novel serialization. The size and format of content bursts are up to the creator. Whether your work is straight text in short story format or chapters in a novel, creators have the freedom to update and release their content at will. There are some drawbacks that I'll address later but let's focus on the possibilities first.

The idea originate from my experience with web comics. The rule of thumb is the more content updates, the more readers frequently visit. Yeah, obvious, I know. The web is driven by immediacy and a voracious appetite for news. Entertainment content without time expiration (something not driven by today's headlines) is different although the update frequency rule still holds. Your audience is divided into separate categories. Some readers loyally return to the site everyday while some wait for a chunk of story to reach a satisfying finish. Trying to build a readership for a comic that flirts with longform storytelling while incorporating a punchline into every post is difficult as some readers forget to check for updates or wait for the story to reach completion.

We already use Twitter to announce a new strip on the site to our followers. While trying to brainstorm extra value for following us on Twitter, I imagined a Twitter-structured comic strip. The idea would be to tell a story in 8 panels tweeted on the hour for 8 hours daily. Each new tweet would link to the latest panel. The effect being new content spread throughout the day for readers to follow.

There are two huge problems with this method. First, is one panel really satisfying to a reader or just extremely annoying? The novelty would wear off quickly for each individual. But you might attract as many new readers as the old ones burn off. Second, presentation is key. The panels can't be displayed in a vacuum or on different pages. The format requires a type of easing scrolling viewer for readers to start at the latest panel but also have easy access to previous panels for that day's strips.

Ultimately, Storytweeting is probably a great ancillary idea to a larger project. If used in moderation or as special event, creators might generate buzz about their content while using the storytweeting medium to direct readers to other, more traditional content.

Twitter

I'm more open to Swine Flu (sorry, H1N1) than I am social networking tools and sites. Maybe that makes me the crotchety old guy with the cane spewing curse words at the younger generation from his yard but what can I say. Privacy is important to me...like oxygen important. If I had time machine, I'd travel back to the constiutional congress, lobby for a privacy amendment by wowing the delegates with some futuristic toys (imagine their reaction to the iPhone) and return home to a place where privacy is as protected as religion.

With my rant aside, I'm ready to crack the door just a sliver. Would I be doing this without the MIT provocation? No. Twitter always seemed to me as the perfect application for two people that really, really wanted you to know they were having a conversation. You know, the internet's version of obnoxious people trapped on the elevator with you.

But here we are anyways. Follow me at http://twitter.com/FatAsteroid

Reading the Twitter homepage, I see the service isn't entirely evil, which is a distinction shared with cable companies, Taco Bell and Zach Snyder's Watchmen. There are some cool features:

1. You can find all of your friends or people with your friends' names. If I'm using the service, dive in right?

2.  Search for tweeted about topics. Now...this feature is something to get excited about. I'll expound on why in another post.

3. Twitter commands. The brevity is refreshing.

4. Privacy Control. After my statements above, you might expect me to turn on the privacy control. No. I'm going to ride this Twitter thing out. As abhorrent as social networking might be, I can see a few uses too, which are neutralized behind a privacy fence.

Hitting the Right Note?

My experience with the Opera browser is limited to two devices not usually associated with web browsing: the Nintendo Wii and a Motorolla Razor. The browser performed well on both devices but my overall usage was limited to checking sports scores or watching You Tube videos on TV. I lacked data for a good, fair comparison to other web browsers.

Opera's been pioneering web surfing innovation since 1996 according to the Wikipedia. With more than a decade of experience, strong investment and smart technology, I'd expect Opera to be a market leader. Instead, the browser maxes out at 2 percent share of the browsing market, which leads to the question: "Why?"

Why has the browser failed to gain traction as a desktop app like Firefox, Safari or IE? This blogger offers various reasons but I think #5 might be the strongest argument. What is the compelling reason to switch to Opera? I have no idea. The brand is well known but I don't know much about it. The growth catalysts behind Safari and IE are obvious. And Firefox, knighted by IT nerds, is an alternative for powers users that customize their browsers and want a higher level of security (maybe the security part isn't even true, I don't know,  but Firefox embraces the public assumption regardless). Even a hood-open comparison revealed Opera performs as well or better than Firefox.

I'm interested to hear our speaker address this issue. Does Opera need better programmers or better marketers? I suspect the latter.

Wiki Ethics

My intial idea for a Wikipedia entry was to document Registered Weapon, my buddy-cop web comic published 4 times a week. As I reviewed the editing and entry process of the site, the conflict of interest issues became apparent. My journalism background (second reference in two posts!) is built around neutral reporting and preserving the unbiased state of information. Sure, I believe I could write an entirely unbiased synopsis on Registered Weapon's history, characters and current adventures but that goes against my own personal reporting ethics. And there's also that must be relevant clause too, which is humbling after searching Wikipedia and realizing no one cared enough to write an unsolicited entry on your web comic. So hey...if someone still needs a wiki entry to write, I can school you in RW lore super quick.

After abandoning that idea, I fell into the wiki blackhole of information trying to find a new topic. Growing up a comic nerd, my mind is packed with useless, 4-color tidbits about decades worth of superhero legacies. Most of the well-known characters and events are expertly documented so I started looking for information gaps on the B-List...C-List...and...finally...the D-List (from an unintiated macroscopic perspective as D-list is too subjective for snarky comics nerds) characters. I settled on The Ray, a DC hero that I doubt anyone in MIT has ever heard of before (except for the dude who commented on my Green Lantern laptop background).

Golden and Modern Age versions of The Ray

The current entry provided a nice synopsis of The Ray history. But it lacked detail. Before I graduated college into the real and started worrying about bills, deadlines and other depressingly frustrating adult stuff, I could've given an oral history of The Ray per issue of his own series and all his guest appearances. The recent decade has eroded those memories (which is likely for the best). Instead, I decided to enter a few lines about The Ray's (II), my personal favorite, recent activities in Final Crisis.

When you start typing in the live wiki entry, suddenly, the pressure is one to be 100 percent accurate. The WYSIWYG interface is pesky at first as you try to insert internal and external hyperlinks, references and other text formatting. The experience showed me that the majority of information is entered by people focused on accuracy. The Wikipedia learning curve, however slight, is a great deterrent against lazy updaters.

Before I update anymore of The Ray's page, I'll need to dig through some dusty comic boxes in the basement for a referesher on his adventures. I don't want to upset the guy who started the entry.

Guy Who (probably) Started The Entry

He looks like a stickler for deatils. Check out those buttons.