World Cup 2010 Ads Extra Time!

Written by: Michael Haley & Eric Steckel
michael@bars-tone.com / eric@bars-tone.com

The final whistle has blown on World Cup 2010 South Africa, and it’s time to take a look at the big players as well as the winners and losers – not on the field but in advertising! While many of the ads didn’t resonate with fans it certainly wasn’t the fault of ESPN which did a great job. Their decision to offer previously unparalleled coverage both on the field and in the studio was rewarded with some of the largest television audiences ever to witness soccer in this country. The AP reports, “World Cup television viewership rose 41 percent over four years ago for English-language telecasts in the United States”. It seems that some advertisers were not able to capitalize on this.

First, the Big Players

AT&T – chose to go with one commercial “How Long” by BBDO New York that was played over and over until most people tuned it out. Comments around the office included, “Fast-forwarded it so many times”, “Couldn’t stand watching it”, and “I always tuned it out”. Interestingly, no one could remember the company or the product being advertised. One wonders if this spot which featured an obvious United States fan could have been brilliantly edited to include the heart-stopping Donovan goal at the end of the USA victory over Algeria. There may have been exorbitant cost licensing the footage but I know a lot of fans that could watch that over and over.  Instead of showing you the AT&T spot, we’ll show you the version that could have been. Thanks to TEX18080.

Budweiser – reverted to sophomoric humor aimed at the male 21-40 demographic with “The Kick” where the fans of a team taking a penalty kick try to distract the goalkeeper with a picture of a hula dancer. The fans of the goalkeeper’s team respond with a distracting picture of a cold Budweiser causing the kick-taker to mis-hit his shot into the stands. Can’t Anheuser-Busch do better than this tired formula? In addition, the content is recycled from a similar ad from 2009. Maybe this is why their domestic sales have remained stagnant for years.  More successful was their mobile exposure as a FIFA sponsor by branding the “Man of the Match” vote at the end of games.  In addition, their Bud United digital campaign was spearheaded by “Bud House” a web reality show which featured 32 fans representing the 32 World Cup nations living together for a month. The program made Budweiser one of the top five branded video channels on YouTube during the tournament.

Coke – was largely successful with its “Longest Celebration” campaign including commercials, a music single, and a strong web presence. According to a Business Wire press release from July 11, “Social media has been a key component of the campaign with the largest YouTube partnership ever done with a global brand at www.youtube.com/coca-cola. The “Longest Celebration” site generated more than 40 million impressions through fans logging on to view dance celebration videos submitted by users in more than 100 countries”.  In particular, we liked this whimsical, animated ad by SANTO.

Hyundai – unlike other companies, created a series of commercials by INNOCEAN that were part of their Loyalty campaign. You remember the creepy commercial with the old man in the casket holding the soccer ball, right?
You probably didn’t see two of the other spots in this campaign after they were banned due to questionable content that upset some viewers. The commercials, “Wedding”, featuring a crown of thorns rested on the top of a soccer ball, and “Communion”, showing soccer fans lined up receiving pizza like one would receive the Eucharist, were not well received by some Catholics. While Hyundai probably wasn’t intentionally trying to irk this large segment of the buying public, it nonetheless spent decent money on ads that didn’t get the airtime that Hyundai was positioned to receive as a FIFA sponsor. As a new father, I found the “Baby Name” commercial to be amusing considering my wife wouldn’t allow our daughter’s middle name to be Howard Bocanegra Cheundolo DeMerit Onyewu Bradley Edu Dempsy Donovan Altidore Gomez!

Carling – Molson Coors’ Carling took a different, more modern approach to commercials they aired in the UK. They quickly finalized spots that were shown immediately following the conclusion of England’s games that included the final score! The ad features men in the desert on camels waiting for a friend to deliver the result. They were able to accomplish this by filming alternate endings for a win, loss or tie. They also recorded over 800 voice-overs with the final score and updated the video as the game went on. Trevor Beattie, co-founder of Carling’s agency, BMB London, said, “It’s important that Carling is seen to be experiencing the match in the same way the fans do. The ads are a bit cheeky — we don’t do hero worship. That Nike ad is b@&*$#!% — Wayne Rooney is never going to end up in a trailer park. The worst thing that happened to him is that he had to use the back exit at Heathrow Airport to sneak back to his mansion.”

And Now the Winners and Losers

Coke v. Pepsi – Pepsi went all in with online, which helped to generate pre-tournament buzz.  However, once the tournament began, their decision to stay on the sidelines meant that they saw little action.  Coke went heavy in TV and online and definitely won the exposure battle.  They better had, because according to Ad Age, Coke intends to reevaluate their partnership with FIFA based upon the results of this campaign.    Will advertising budgets relegate the champ to second-division status?

Budweiser v. ? – No one could dethrone the King of (World Cup) Beers.  Their TV, online and mobile presence covered the entire pitch, so to speak.  With InBev’s purchase of this iconic American brand the focus has shifted to Bud’s global image and sales.  The World Cup perfectly fits that emphasis.

Nike v. Adidas – Nike got a lot of the pre-tournament buzz, but once the tournament started, the conversation moved toward Adidas.  Nike may have been hurt by the fact that most of the players featured in the ad were a disappointment on the field with few goals scored, some of the players’ teams not advancing past the group stage, and one player not even making the team sent to South Africa. Another missed opportunity was not having the USA’s Landon Donovan feature more prominently (he appears in a brief cameo). With reports of upwards of $10 million coming his way in endorsements he certainly “wrote his future” financially. As for Adidas and their increased in-tournament exposure, how much of that was due to the Jabulani ball, we may never know, but let’s call this one a “high-scoring draw”.

U2 v. Shakira – U2 fans were dealt a blow with the cancellation of 2010
U. S. tour dates due to Bono’s back injury, and U2’s omnipresence in the ESPN bumpers served as a constant reminder.  Shakira really shook it up in the opening concert and the closing ceremonies.  Waka Waka (Time for Africa) so let’s close with a global icon we can all agree on.

Branded Entertainment Will Take Over your Screen!!!

Written by: Enrique Zabala
enrique@bars-tone.com

Branded Entertainment started in the early 1950s as an advert to radio shows and eventually to soap operas; the purpose of branded entertainment is to communicate the product’s image to its target audience through different emotions. At the start of the Reagan Era, branded entertainment faded away in the American landscape. Now that technology has advanced people are more able to skip through ads much easier. Advertisers are having a hard time getting their message across without it getting interrupted. For this reason, they are trying to figure out how to stay relevant and rise over other competitors to get a more effective response.

Though, 30-second ads are still successful, some brands want to have a different connection with their target audience. There is an effort to return to Branded Entertainment, a longer and more emotional way of advertising. Brands such as BMW, Philips, and Oliver Peoples have used this way of advertising successfully. They have increased their brand awareness, brand loyalty and sales.

BMW released a series of short films titled The Hire featuring different BMW models and Clive Owen as the main character of these short films. The purpose of these short films was to increase brand awareness and connect with customers online. Though YouTube and video streaming sites were not popular at the time (2001), BMW made sure people could watch these videos through their website…eventually becoming viral helping them increase brand loyalty by 47%.

Oliver Peoples, a European luxurious eyewear company has released a Branded Entertainment piece every year for the past three years. They recognized that consumers needed a different way to connect with the brand. As a result they have seen an increase in E-commerce sales, time spent on website and brand recognition. “Les enfants sennuient le dimanche (The children are bored on Sundays)” is Oliver Peoples’ latest film.

Philips created five short films after the success of their previous branded entertainment video campaign (Carousel). These five short films used five different directors but all of them had the same script. These films were uploaded on Philips’ website (www.philips.com/cinema) as part of the new launch of the Philips Cinema 21:9 TV. “The Gift” one of the five films from Parallel Lines won the Grand Pix award. This video currently has over 8 million views online!

These brands have successfully integrated Brand Entertainment as part of their marketing campaign by increasing sales, building brand affinity and raising brand awareness. Connecting with consumers has always been a priority. Advertisers have found an effective way to connect with consumers and it does not look like it will stop anytime soon.

LeBron’s Decision to Change a City’s Future!

Written by: Tony Camarena
Tony@bars-tone.com

No matter who the lucky team is, the LeBron James sweepstakes might have changed sports marketing as we know it. Talk of the 2010 NBA free agency has been in sports news for the past few years. Never before has so much attention been drawn to the anticipation of an athlete’s decision. So much attention that NBA teams and their respective cities have hired marketing and advertising agencies to help set into motion different strategies to entice The King to come play on their court. I know it’s crazy; millions of dollars being spent to attempt to sway the decision of one person! It should be known that NBA anti-tampering rules prohibit teams outside of the player’s current team to make contact while the player is still under contract. In other words, these campaigns are being funded and created by third party interests- the cities and civic leaders themselves- and not the NBA teams.

Cleveland has the most to gain and the most to lose in the big jackpot. LeBron is their guy. To quote one of the campaigns, “He lives here, He plays here, He stays here.” Cleveland is a small market team who happened to be able to draft a local kid who became the biggest name in all of basketball. The Cleveland campaign is a somewhat small-town approach. As seen in this video on the “Positively Cleveland” (Cleveland’s Convention and Visitors Bureau) YouTube Channel, locals state that LeBron is more than a player, he is a local, and more or less belongs to Cleveland. That remains to be seen, but the morethanaplayer.org campaign states a compelling case.

New York’s approach has been to focus on non-basketball related issues to win LeBron’s favor. For lack of a better way to say this, the Knicks haven’t been good in years. The C’mon LeBron campaign was spear-headed by Mayor Bloomberg and the city’s marketing firm NYC and Co., brilliantly added to the official New York City tourism website to get the entire Big Apple involved in the push for basketball’s royal resident. This included video invitations from various high profile New Yorkers- Mayor Bloomberg himself and Iron Chef Mario Batali to name a couple. Senior Vice President of Team Marketing & Business Operations Scott O’Neil, said James would become a billionaire if he landed in New York, as reported by Ian O’Connor of ESPNNewYork.com. But who cares about money and the glitz and glamour of playing under one of sports biggest spotlights? He wants multiple championships, right?

Leo Burnett ad agency of Chicago, took a more direct, and let’s face it, a much more creative approach. On Monday LeBron received a package on his front doorstep. Inside [see image below] was a pair of the original Nike Jordan shoes with a couple of questions: “Can you live up to a legend ?” And, “Can you fill these shoes?”

King James was greeted on Tuesday morning with a set of seven empty championship ring boxes that represented “one more championship than Jordan won [in Chicago],” as reported in an article by Steve Johnson of the Chicago Tribune, along with another question, “Can you fill these boxes?” Wednesday came and The King was presented with a mock Chicago Tribune ten years into the future which read, “Sweet Throne, Chicago: No. 7, It’s Officially King James’ Court.” And finally on Thursday (the official start of free agency) Leo Burnett sent James a copy of that day’s Akron Beacon Journal. Inside was a two paged ad that read, “LeBron, the fans of Chicago have a question for you, Can you cast a shadow this big?” And right beside the message, a slightly altered image of the Air Jordan logo that pretty much everyone across the globe could recognize. A risky call to turn Jordan’s incredible legacy into a challenge for LeBron. But who knows, maybe it just inspired him to take on those challenges in his own hometown of Cleveland.

So why are they doing all of this? Local Pride? Global Branding? The bottom line is that while this deal will make LeBron James a very rich young man, he is not the only one hoping to profit from this decision. According to Matthew Stiker, Chief Marketing Officer at San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau stated that “The reason these cities are all making such a big deal out of this is that Lebron’s decision will have an incredible financial impact on the city he chooses to play. Star power equates to higher ratings, which draws more attention to a destination, and also higher game attendance, which means more people coming into the city to eat at the restaurants, stay at the hotels, etc. Over time, the impact will certainly be in the millions of dollars.” Civic leaders are attempting to capitalize on this golden opportunity and have taken on a stronger foothold in the business of sports in order to realize an economic gain. However, even this point has been open to debate. Conflicting sports marketing studies from Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys of the University of Maryland and John K. Skoburg of the University of Illinois at Chicago differ on their opinion on the impact LeBron will make. Which leaves us with only one certainty- whoever signs LeBron will go quickly to the head of the title picture, which is something any city leader would be pleased to hear.

Note:
Here is a Fox TV clip from “Hot in Cleveland”

Magnify to Run Pre-Roll in Embedded User Generated Content (UGC)

Written by: Eric Steckel
eric@bars-tone.com

Ever since YouTube roared onto the scene, there has been a conundrum about how to make user generated content (UGC) profitable. “So far, there has been a real disconnect,” says Brent Roberts of Specific Media, a premium online ad network. “One of the major issues with running ads before user generated content, and creating a profit driver, is that a potential advertiser has no way of knowing where that video might be embedded.” In other words, it could be embedded in a respected third-party site that hits your target demographic, or it could end up somewhere else, which is far less desirable. The advertiser has little control over where a YouTube, Metacafe or Vimeo upload is embedded.

Enter Magnify, an aggregator that makes it easier for mid-sized web publishers to integrate video into their sites. Magnify helps to seamlessly embed user generated content, content that the property has found, or content that the property has created, in order to leverage the power of video within the site. With Elastic Inventory, Magnify has brokered deals to run pre-roll in embedded UGC. The way it works is that the publisher can buy UGC pre-roll space at a reduced rate, and then sell it at a premium cost. The publisher profits from the mark-up. Currently they have brokered a deal with Metacafe, but the goal is to do this across all of the UGC sites.

What is interesting about this is that it truly blurs the line between UGC and Professional content. Because the sites that they are purchasing ad space from have been hand selected and vetted, it is assumed to be a safe bet. However, Roberts suggests that the real litmus test will be when a large company like Clorox or Williams Sonoma enters into the mix. “If a company of that size places a considerable buy, you now have the scalability you need to be profitable.”

Don’t expect this to be an overnight sea change. As Erick Schonfeld of Tech Crunch points out, “I doubt YouTube would ever agree to an arrangement where they lose control of the market for their video ads.” Since YouTube is still the biggest, baddest player in the field, that’s an extremely important point, which means the promise of YouTube profitability is still out there. Magnify might take a small cut of the action, but time will tell if, when and how UGC will be truly open to advertisers.

SFAMA ft. Brian Solis!

Last Wednesday, we had the privilege to host one of the monthly SFAMA events at our location!

In this opportunity Brian Solis, a digital analyst, sociologist and globally recognized author in new media was the special speaker, who talked about the effectiveness and importance of Social Media in businesses as well to promote his book Engage!

Engage: The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web focuses on the following points:

*Create a space in the online ecosystem that truly represents your business and cultivates your customers’ loyalty and trust

*Participate in the unique culture of each available social media platform to engage your customers

*Establish an organizational structure that constantly targets the next new media trend

*Attract online champions and change agents who will uncover the social networks you need to reach and the influencers who will help build your reputation in the networked world

*Consistently adapt your company to market needs and trends based on the invaluable connections you forge and the empathy and insight you garner in the process

If you are interested in learning more about the subject…. Go buy Engage!
We have a copy already!

In the next couple days we will have Brian Solis answering a few questions we put together to learn more about Social Media!!!

A Marketer’s Perspective on the YouTube Court Victory

Written by: Eric Steckel
eric@bars-tone.com

This morning I read Eric Franchi’s Blog Post on Media Post (http://bit.ly/b5MzFh). He discusses not so much the winners and losers in the YouTube vs. Viacom case, but more about the impact it has on content producers, who he feels are the big winners.

By all accounts, the recent ruling by New York Judge Louis Stanton in the case between YouTube and Viacom has left us where we were before. Because of the “Safe Harbor” language in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, YouTube can continue to host content that potentially contains copyrighted material. The reasoning- A service provider will likely have a vague knowledge that copyrighted material is on their site, due to the sheer volume of uploads to a site such as YouTube. However, they are not responsible for policing all of the content. The important catch here is that when notified by the owner of the material and asked to remove the content, they are not liable if they respond quickly and remove said material and if it can be proven that they were not aware that the material was on their site.

A concern that I see as a marketer is that it further blurs the fair use of copyrighted material. We continue to have clients that want to use Lady Gaga or Michael Jackson in their “YouTube” video. “But it’s a marketing piece.” I tell them. “You can’t afford to license that song.” They’ll now point to something like this and say that it’s fair game, until someone tells them to pull it down. This protects YouTube, but the question is, does it protect my client?

Well, not exactly. There is still the small matter of copyright infringement. This case protects service providers, but from where I sit, it does not protect the potentially deep pockets of my client, especially if they are using it for commercial purposes. While this is undoubtedly a win for content producers and the web, a distinction needs to be made about who is responsible when copyright infringements are made. As a content producer, my responsibility is to protect my client, but rulings like this will make it harder to state my case. There seems to be some gray area here. It will be important for marketers to continue to educate their clients on when and how they can use copyrighted material.

HTML5 Vs. Flash: YouTube Provides a Voice of Reason

Written by: Owen Smythiman
Owen@bars-tone.com

In a recent update, YouTube software engineer and blogger John Harding took a fair but critical look at the viability of HTML5. From YouTube’s standpoint, he found HTML5 to be full of potential but ultimately far too young as a technology to adopt as the new standard in place of Adobe Flash. In a point-by-point breakdown refreshingly devoid of drama, he generously but firmly made YouTube’s position clear:

“We’re very happy to see such active and enthusiastic discussion about evolving web standards – YouTube is dependent on browser enhancement in order for us to improve the video experience for our users. While HTML5’s video support enables us to bring most of the content and features of YouTube to computers and other devices that don’t support Flash Player, it does not yet meet all of our needs. Today, Adobe Flash provides the best platform for YouTube’s video distribution requirements, which is why our primary video player is built with it.”

There’s been quite a bit of hubbub about this subject, most of which seems to have been generated by Apple. However, the industry players are beginning to chime in. They’re all in favor of an open standard, and of course view the iPad as a viable platform, but aren’t yet sold on fully adopting HTML5. In fact, Hulu stated a month or so ago that it wouldn’t support HTML5 at all, but it now appears to be developing a platform-specific player for the iPad and PlayStation 3 and is expected to charge $10/month for it, The Register Uk Reports.

As a digital media agency, BARS+TONE keeps tabs on all of this. We’re ready to roll with new viable industry trends, but we’re also glad that YouTube has spoken a few words of reason. While all the drama has been entertaining, we’re hoping the warring factions will take YouTube’s position as a sign of the times and reach a compromise. I’d like to hope they’ll even start working together, but that’s kind of a long shot.

RED Camera: Our Observations

Written by: Eric Steckel
eric@bars-tone.com

In the past two years, a new camera has burst onto the scene, and everyone in our field wants to make movie magic. Of course, we’re talking about the RED Camera. Created and financed by Oakley Sunglasses founder Jim Jannard, it really is an amazing camera that has come from left field. As you might guess, Oakley was not a player in the high-stakes digital video industry. Like most “flavors of the month” debates rage about whether the hype is worth it.

This past month, BARS+TONE completed it’s first production using only material shot on the RED. Up until now, we felt that using film lenses on our Panasonic HDX900 camera achieved results that were sufficient to our purposes. However, the clamor to use the RED led us to want to try it out, and we were pleasantly surprised by the results. As our Creative Director Brian T. Nowac said, “It was as if we could completely screw up the shot, but fix it in post because there was so much detail to work with.” Now keep in mind, we didn’t screw up any shots, but as a studio that prides itself on getting it right in production and in post, it’s good to know that the camera really delivers.

Here are some of our observations.

Pros:
 It has gorgeous depth of field
 It produces massive, high-quality 4K image to work with, which ties into Mr. Nowac’s comment above
 The raw format allows almost infinite tweaking
 It works with all your old film lenses, mounts, and other accessories
 The software on the camera is constantly improving with each new release
 The camera has a wide array of options so you can get almost any “look” you want

Cons:
 The massive, high-quality 4K image requires huge amounts of processing time and quite a bit of storage
 The raw format REQUIRES specific tweaking, or else you end up with something weird-looking
 It ONLY works with film lenses, mounts and accessories, all of which can be quite expensive
 The software on the camera changes drastically every month or so, requiring time to get familiar with it each time
 the camera has so many options that it’s generally a good idea to hire a Digital Imaging Technician to go on the shoot

We really enjoyed working with the RED Camera, and the results speak for themselves. However, it comes at a cost. If you have the money, time, equipment, and expertise, but be prepared for some hangups. If not, there are alternatives, like prime lenses on our HDX900, that achieve great results as well.

HTML 5- I scream, you scream, we all scream for…what? Yet another web standard? (P. 2)

Written by: Owen Smithyman
owen@bars-tone.com

In HTML5 part 1, we looked at HTML5 and Adobe Flash, their major differences, and areas where they overlap. Now in Part 2, we’re going to look at the various corporate forces hard at work at shaping the very near future of web standards, and we’ll end with looking at what it means for an average user as well as BARS+TONE.

The Giants: Now for those corporate giants: who are they, and what factors are at play in their market strategies? The main companies are:

– Google, who owns YouTube. Thanks to Flash, YouTube is finally starting to make some money by serving ads and profit sharing programs. In fact, Google’s entire marketing strategy is to serve ads in various forms. The more people that use Google’s free services, the more eyeballs there are to serve ads to. Google has an interest in HTML5 because it will make many of their services more interactive and more user-friendly, and possibly even help create new services. This all means more users to serve ads to.

– Apple, who makes the iPhone and iPad, which specifically do NOT use Flash. However, they can play YouTube videos because they got help from Google, which encodes many YouTube videos to MPEG-4 so they can be served to the iPhone YouTube application. With HTML5, that isn’t necessary – iPhones will be able to play videos right inside Safari.

– Microsoft, maker of Internet Explorer, the world’s most widely-used web browser. They’ve been trying to push their own alternative to Flash, which is called Silverlight, for quite some time now, but with limited success. They’ve also notoriously lagged behind when it comes to adopting new technologies, and it’s the same story for HTML5.

– Lastly, Adobe has enjoyed market superiority for years with Flash, and has generated significant revenues by selling development tools to create Flash content for websites. Adobe is also the maker of a very-much-established web design application called Dreamweaver, the latest version of which is fully capable of working in HTML5. Lastly, Adobe’s latest release, Creative Suite 5, brings forth a powerful set of cross-platform development tools, which allow code to be written once and then used anywhere – be it an iPad, a website, or a BlackBerry.

Corporate strategy? The overall corporate strategy for any kind of software or platform is this: have as many people use your software for as many things as possible. Even if it’s free software, this still allows control of the market. This approach was pioneered by Microsoft long ago, and both Apple and Adobe are pushing their own version of it, which is why Apple forbids developers to make iPhone apps that could replace existing apps already made by Apple. Apple has been a longstanding rival of Adobe, and has refused to incorporate Flash into the widely popular iPhone and iPad, intending instead to alter the very nature of the Internet itself to cater to these devices. Google currently must use Flash in order to serve video to the majority of viewers on YouTube. However, HTML5 can replace some of the functionality of Flash, particularly the ability to play video and to draw dynamic graphics on a page. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are all announcing plans to implement HTML5 in the near future – on the iPhone, in YouTube and Google Apps, and in Internet Explorer 9. In many cases, they’ve already started.

Why all the hubbub if Flash already works and is everywhere? Part of it is a reaction to the strategy mentioned above. While most users don’t care, the corporations do. Who wants users of their product to be required to use competitors’ software in order to watch videos? Certainly not Apple. Also, Flash uses a proprietary programming language controlled by Adobe, and Javascript, which is the programming language used in conjunction with HTML5, is open-source. Lastly, Flash sites are very difficult for search engines to index properly, whereas HTML5 sites are not.

Recent update: Both Apple and Adobe have recently posted public letters on their websites that disparage the actions of the other. Not only that, but Hulu, the pioneer of large-scale, free, ad-supported TV and movies, recently announced that it would not be moving to HTML5 because the technology is “not yet ready” to meet its needs. Apple recently declared a new policy that bans iPhone apps written using Adobe software, forcing Adobe to abandon that key element in their cross-platform toolset, which weakens its viability. It’s anybody’s guess as to how far the conflict may escalate.

Hard numbers: But let’s also just take a break from the speculation and hype for a moment to look at some hard numbers. While the latest Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera browsers support HTML5 to varying degrees, they only make up about 40% of the market. Microsoft Internet Explorer makes up the other 60%, and no version supports HTML5 yet. The next version (IE 9) will, but keep in mind that the total number of people using Firefox only recently surpassed the number of people using Internet Explorer 6, which was released in 2001! http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/11/october-2009-browser-stats-firefox-finally-passes-ie6.ars

Flash, on the other hand, is present on 98% of browsers worldwide, including IE 6. Until more people update or switch, it’s going to be difficult to oust Flash from its current position. And really, it’s not either-or. There is a lot of concern with making sure customers can see everything they need to see, and as a result, new ways of coding webpages have emerged that automatically choose Flash or HTML5 based on what the user’s browser can support.

So what does it all mean for the average web user? It means that the quality of your experience using the web will gradually continue to get better, just as it always has. The corporations will continue to fight for position, and the winner’s technology will become the new standard. You probably won’t notice a whole lot, other than a few moments when you think to yourself, “Oh, that’s cool. I haven’t seen that before.” Keep in mind that you will need to update your browser to use all the latest features.

So what does it all mean for B+T? It means to keep our eyes open and keep observing trends and planning. Our web developers are keeping up on these trends as well, but a client would be ill-advised to ask us to write a website whose functionality depends on new features in HTML5 until browser penetration grows significantly. In the meantime, HTML5 is a great way to extend the reach of our online video content to iPhone and other mobile users in the near future.

3-D or 3-Don’t?

Written by: Tony Camarena
tony@bars-tone.com

The popularity of 3D movies seems to have increased over the past few years, but is it really worth a 15 dollar movie ticket?

I am interested to know exactly how much more it costs movie studios to take a regular film and make it viewable in 3D. I’ve heard it’s something like 30 million dollars. After viewing Clash of the Titans 3D I was fairly entertained. Aside from the mediocre-at-best acting, the 3D aspect was pretty cool and it wasn’t even meant to be viewed in 3D! Was Avatar 3D really that much more amazing? Avatar’s budget was estimated around 350 million dollars, depending on who you ask; and the blockbuster profited over 2 billion dollars worldwide according to The New York Times. Yes, the film developed new technologies that will be used for years to come, but the storyline could have used some of that “new technology” investment money. After all, you would think that spending that much on a film would guarantee you an Oscar, right?

My point is, neither movie blew me away or changed my life. Computer graphics have been around for over 30 years and it definitely takes a lot more than spending 350 million dollars on a movie to blow my mind, especially when it’s viewed on cheap 17 dollar 3D glasses. Yeah, I said cheap. If you’re going to invest that much in making imaginary worlds look photorealistic, then make it an experience like never seen before. Maybe the James Camerons of the world could invest in, or buy, companies like Micoy that give you a true 3D immersive experience with 360 degree video. There are even a handful of universities that are lucky enough to have virtual reality caves that give the freedom of walking around in these 3D worlds.

So if the 3D movie ticket is 15 dollars, that’s almost a 30 percent increase from the cost of a regular movie ticket. Are 3D movies really 30 percent better than regular ones?