Just in, here’s a cost breakdown for someone planning on having a lot of regular viewers on Mogulus reported verbatim:

2$1.50 per gigabyte for bandwidth on Mog Pro. They include 25GB in their base plan at $350/mo.

If we’re streaming at the basic 500 Kbps, that amounts to 3.75 MB/min or 225 MB/hour.
So if we had 11 people watch us for 10 hours, that’s 225MB x 11 x 10 = 25 GB gone.

If we have 1000 people watching for one hour, say a Christmas parade, that will amount to 225 GB. At $1.50 per GB, that will cost us $337.50 for that hour.

ONE person watching for 24 hours would eat up 5.4GB ($8.10)

If we were to average about 1000 viewers over a 24 hour period (with it peaking mid-day and petering off at night) that would amount to 5400 GB, or $8,100. FOR ONE DAY. It would be a quarter million a month to operate at that level.

Unfortunately this isn’t entirely hard to believe. Bandwidth is, and always has been prohibitively expensive. Sorry to rain on the parade, but we should have realized this was too good to be true.”

Read more here:
Rich Movie Mogul

The interim findings by the UK’s Competition Commission seems to indicate that the Kangaroo internet TV service proposed by the country’s three largest broadcasters will need to be severely paired down if it is to get off the ground. And rightly so.

More:
Kangaroo Bounced

There are few signs of recession in the funding for online video companies as this roundup shows. Ten years ago raising funding for this market was tough, five years ago almost impossible, but as the market crowds out, it seems to get easier…

Read the original here:
Funding Flurry

Here is the original:
Going Down..

Media is produced globally. Because of the cost of producing content, major brands and organisations are keen to reuse their creative messages around the world. This is why you see those cheesy overdubbed ads from Germany and those nauseating ads from the US on British TV. Once upon a time it should not have been acceptable in the UK, but it seems to becoming the norm.

Now, I remember working with creative guru TrevorBeattie when he was the creative head at TBWA and his argument was simple – ideas that travel. That is, a good idea should appeal to any consumer, of any wealth anywhere. You can take Ferrari as an example. If you’re a billionaire you covet a Ferrari and if you’re penniless and shoeless you also covet one. (Let’s not get into the moral argument for now..).

But this does not mean that you don’t have to adapt the idea to local markets and local languages. When Jif became Zif it lost major market share, when Marathon became Snickers, it fared even worse. But the idea of a bleach cleaner and peanut toffee chocolate product have global appeal.

Meantime, in mediabuyingland, media budgets are horrifyingly  local. If you advertise on a website in the UK and 10% of the viewers come from outside the UK (with an ad that’s dubbed from Swahili), then you huff and puff and demand 10% rebate on the media.

I’ve yet to hear anyone demand a rebate for producing idiotic localised content based on internationalised ideas.

So, here lies the crux. Advertisers use all kinds of science in their art, but they are stupid beyond belief. They think that impact overcomes message. This is the equivalent of an Englishman shouting at a foreigner so that they better understand his language.

We’re trying to apply Ford Model T philosophy to an affluent, Tiffany world.

Media is no different. If I have the money, why can’t I see what I want to see when I want to see it?  And why isn’t this hugely valuable to an advertiser?

The value of an audience of one is hugely underappreciated.

Continued here:
The Narrowcasting Dichotomy