stories filed under: "quality"
Can You Speed Up Patent Reviews While Improving Patent Quality?
from the if-so,-how? dept
I caught most of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke's speech (to a surprisingly small audience) yesterday at CES. There really wasn't that much that was worth commenting on, as it was mostly filled with typical political platitudes, and statements that often were based on questionable assumptions. For example, when he spoke about patents, as he's done before, he talked up the importance of approving more patents faster. But, right after that, he also talked about the importance of increasing the quality of approved patents, and getting rid of bad patents. What he didn't explain is how the USPTO would deal with the inherent conflict. If you speed up the pace of approving patents, you're inevitably going to let more bad patents through. It's nice to just say you want to speed up patent approvals while improving the quality of patents, but you have to at least recognize that the two goals are clearly in conflict. There may be ways to mitigate that (though, I'm not convinced any would actually work all that well in the long run), but it seems like the typical political promises of things that work against each other, such as claiming to want to increase government funded social services, while decreasing taxes. The two concepts are inherently in conflict, but politicians make such promises all the time. Still, if Locke really believes it's possible to bridge that conflict, it would be nice if he actually explained how.Filed Under: gary locke, patents, quality, speed
Making A High Quality Film On The Cheap With A Digital SLR
from the and-it-looks-pretty-good dept
A few years back at a Cato Institute conference on copyright, a guy from NBC Universal challenged me with the question of "how will we make $200 million movies?" if content is freely shared. As I noted at the time, that's really the wrong question. No one watching a movie cares about how much the movie costs. They just want to see a good movie. The question for a good filmmaker or producer or a studio should be "how do I make the best movie I can that will still be profitable?" Starting out with a "cost" means that you don't focus on ways to save money or contain costs. You focus on ways to spend up to those costs. That's backwards, and it's how you fail as a business.Imagine if Dell or IBM or HP went around saying "but how can we profitably make $5,000 computers?" It's a silly question, and it doesn't get you to focus on things like reducing costs. And, it's important to note that technology keeps making the cost of making, distributing and promoting content cheaper. No, it's still not cheap to make movies, but you can make better and better films for less and less money these days.
Jim Harper (who, it should be noted, was the guy who invited me to that Cato event in the first place), reminds us of this with a blog post jokingly entitled How to Make a $200 Million Movie, but which actually shows how it's getting cheaper and cheaper to make a film these days. Specifically, he shows an amusing new short film from Futuristic Films, which looks pretty good and notes in the opening that the whole damn thing was shot with a Pentax K-7 DSLR, which you can find these days for around $800 or so:
I would bet these guys aren't going around whining, "but how can we make a $200 million movie?"
Journalists Worried About Content Farms Are Missing The Point: The Web Has Always Been Filled With Crap
from the stop-worrying-about-what-others-are-doing dept
There's been a lot of fretting lately in the journalism field about the rise of so-called "content farms." These are operations like Demand Media or Associated Content (recently purchased by Yahoo) or even AOL's "Seed" experiment, that focus on generating a ton of content at very low cost, mostly aimed at ranking high on search engines. Last year, Wired Magazine ran a pretty good story covering the details of this particular business model. Basically, you find really cheap freelancers, tell them to quickly write up content on "popular" topics, pay them very, very little and don't worry too much about quality. The whole point is to rank high in search engines when people search on various topics.Not surprisingly, this state of affairs worries some journalists who fear that these "content farms" are "killing" journalism. In fact, a group of online content syndicators are even talking about setting up an official "online quality" standards guidelines for internet content, even to the point of considering "accrediting" whatever is considered "quality" journalism.
I certainly understand and recognize the concern. When you look at much of the content produced by these content farms (and it's certainly worth pointing out that these operations deny the whole "content farm" claim -- as well as the insinuation that their content is bad), it's hard not to quickly recognize that much of the content is really, really bad. It's not well written. It's not very thorough. It's often not very accurate or useful. But, even given all of that, the "concerns" that this is somehow harming journalism seem wildly overblown.
The internet has always been filled with a lot more crappy content than good content. That's what every internet-hater points out first. But that's always been a search and filter problem. Bad content does not directly impact good content unless you become obsessed over the fact that some people are reading the bad content over your good content. In the early days, it's why sites like Yahoo developed in the first place: as a directory to try to help you find the good content instead of the crappy content (so, yeah, Yahoo buying a content farm is a bit ironic). And when the concept of "directories" became overwhelmed, we moved onto search, mostly based on things like metatags. And when that got gamed to death such that crappy content crowded out the ability to find good content, we moved on to much better search algorithms, like those found at Google, which tried to solve that basic problem.
The situation that we're in right now is one where the current filtering mechanisms might not yet be good enough to distinguish quality content from crappy content. But that's a temporary state of affairs. On top of that, one person's crappy content may be good enough for whatever it is they're trying to do or understand. There is no rule that says the best quality content has to win. For those of us who like quality content (and, every so often, try to produce it), it may be painful to hear that, but welcome to the competitive marketplace. If someone's serving the need better than you, then that's the market you deal with. It doesn't mean that quality content producers should crappify their content, but it might mean they need to rethink some aspects of what they're doing -- such as not relying on crappy filters as the source of your traffic.
It's that last point that highlights the real "problem" that journalists seem to have with these content farms. The journalists have become so convinced that Google is where they need to get all their traffic, that when Google ranks web farm content higher, that's somehow the fault of the content farms. In reality, it means that relying on Google for traffic may be a mistake. Quality content is hard to figure out algorithmically, though my guess is that Google is working on this issue all the time. If Google starts realizing that people do, in fact, find content farm content to be useless, that content will eventually get rated down, no matter how much they try to play SEO games.
But, even beyond that, the way people discover and consume higher quality content is changing as well. The value of "passed" or "earned" links -- i.e., links that are sent around via email or social networks -- is growing rapidly, and that's the sort of filter that tends to focus more on "better" content, rather than pure content farm content. So, in the end, this seems like a "problem" that corrects itself over time. Sure, right now, these content farms are good at getting their content seen. But if that content really isn't that useful, the rest of the market will adapt and adjust.
Filed Under: content farms, journalism, quality
Companies: aol, associated content, demand media
Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem
from the refreshing dept
Reader jorshw was the first of a few who sent in this recent NY Times article questioning how Google would deal with the fact that people are now creating ad blocking extensions for Google's Chrome browser. What's really telling is the comment from a Google engineering director, Linus Upson, about why this is no big deal:"It's unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying. So I think the market will sort this out."This is the exact right response to this kind of question. It's a user-centric response that doesn't immediately rush to the "simple" answer that ad blocking somehow "takes money" away, but realizes that if people are so intent on blocking ads -- then the problem isn't with the people blocking the ads, but with the advertising itself.
Filed Under: ad blockers, ad blocking, competition, quality
Companies: google
Cisco Realizes It's A Waste Of Time To Focus On Patent Quantity
from the good-for-them dept
A few weeks back, we noted how some were freaking out over the fact that patent applications were down, without bothering to look behind the numbers at why. Instead, they jumped to the conclusion that innovation in the US was dropping. johnjac points us to an article where folks at Cisco suggests that it might just be tech companies realizing that patenting everything is a waste of time and money. In fact, the story states that Cisco recently changed its patent strategy from trying to patent everything to trying to focus on things that it believes is really innovative, rather than everything it can possibly get a patent on.I can already hear the usual crowd of patent holders in our comments. They hate Cisco and pretty much any big company. They'll interpret this statement as meaning that Cisco has become less inventive and is more focused on "stealing" inventions. Of course, what's amusing is that they'll never present any evidence for those accusations (though, I'm sure they'll accuse me of being on the take for Cisco even though we've never done any business with Cisco in any way whatsoever).
That said, I do find some of the comments from Cisco odd and somewhat unsupportable:
"The arms race approach doesn't pay off," he says. "It doesn't do you a lot of good to have a lot of patents."The first part is true. Lots of companies find themselves being sued by non-practicing entities, but it's not because of the number of patents they hold. The NPEs (patent trolls, patent hoarders, whatever you want to call them) aren't suing those who have the most patents. They're suing whoever has (1) products on the market and (2) a large bank account. Cisco could have no patents at all, and it would still be getting sued just as much by NPEs. So, frankly, I don't buy the claim that the more patents you have, the more likely you are to get sued. Instead, my guess, is that Cisco has realized that getting patents (especially in such large numbers) is an expensive process, for little benefit. It may help in some lawsuits against competitors (when Cisco can threaten to counter sue over other patents), but you only need so many patents for that. So, it looks like Cisco is building up a stable of defensive patents, and has realized that you don't need the largest number. That's a good thing, but the claim that more patents makes you more of a target just doesn't make sense.
Why? The patent landscape has changed dramatically. Patents often land companies in court as they fight over who invented the idea first. Lawsuits still might involve competitors, but increasingly Cisco finds it is battling what Chandler calls "non-practicing entities." These are companies that exist only to acquire patents and then seek to extract money from big companies for infringing on them. The more patents you hold, the more likely one of these companies will sue you.
Is Piracy Also Increasing The Quality Of New Movies?
from the more-data-from-the-front dept
We recently wrote about how the singer of the popular band the Fleet Foxes felt that unauthorized file sharing has improved the quality of new music, because it allows musicians to experience much more music, and that helps create more and better influences. This makes a lot of sense, as you realize how much creative content is really built on inspiration from other works. So, is the same thing true for movies? In a recent interview with film director and producer Tommy Pallotta (who did A Scanner Darkly), he talks about his latest project, American Prince, and its relationship to unauthorized file sharing. American Prince is a "followup" to Martin Scorsese's documentary American Boy from over thirty years ago. The Scorsese movie is close to impossible to find legally... and, even though Pallotta did get is hands on an "official" copy from the main character in the movie, he downloaded a copy via BitTorrent and found it to be better. With American Prince, Pallotta has also purposely decided to put the movie online for torrenting.Still, the key point that Pallotta makes seems to fit almost exactly with what the Fleet Foxes were saying:
Scorsese's American Boy has been and is still generally unavailable for over 30 years, yet so many filmmakers have been influenced by it. The way we saw it is through multi-generational VHS tapes. Now with BitTorrent, there is a whole new audience and generation ready to be influenced by that film and I hope mine. Steven Prince is a gold mine of future cinema scenes and I hope a whole new generation of filmmakers will understand how he has influenced American Cinema.In other words, by getting more people exposed to the film, more can be influenced to make better movies as well. In fact, he seems to view the combination of his own movie and it being available on BitTorrent as film school:
I would really like to encourage people to talk about the film, with each other as well as on the Internet. It would make me happy to see Wikipedia entries and IMDB boards as well as Internet sites. I would love for people to get together and have screenings of it with their friends, or for universities to suggest to their class for the students to watch it. I look at American Prince as the film school I never had, what I always imagined film school to be.And, of course, unlike what the MPAA claims, Pallotta only sees the positives that come out of file sharing:
I absolutely believe how we watch and share movies will shape the future of film distribution. I believe it will have such a profound influence that it will even change how movies are made. I think it is a win-win for the filmmakers and the viewers. Filmmakers will have a more direct reach with audience and viewers have more to choose from. I wanted to release this film in support of file sharing and to prove to myself and others that it can have a profoundly positive effect.So, of course, if you want to see the movie, Pallotta hopes you'll download it.
Filed Under: american prince, movies, piracy, quality, tommy pallotta
Popular Band Claims Music Is Better Because Of Piracy
from the helping-to-define-a-sound dept
We just wrote about the Harvard economists who noted that, despite claims that file sharing would decrease the incentive to create content, more music than ever before is being made, and the trends keep going up. That report did note that it couldn't necessarily judge quality, but was simply focused on quantity. However, according to at least one well known band, unauthorized file sharing is absolutely improving the quality of music -- especially the band's own music. This is according to the lead singer of the Fleet Foxes, Robin Pecknold. He points out that his own musical tastes were heavily influenced by what he could download online, and that wide variety of influences has made him a much better musician:"As much music as musicians can hear, that will only make music richer as an artform.... I think we're seeing that now with tons of new bands that are amazing, and are doing way better music now than was being made pre-Napster."Now, obviously, this is anecdotal and a single data point -- but the critics (and fans) sure do seem to like the Fleet Foxes' music. Its debut album was named "Best of 2008" by Billboard, The Times, Mojo, Pitchfork and Uncut and hit number 3 on the UK charts (not sure about the US). And, of course, not surprisingly, Pecknold is fine if you want to download his album:
"I've downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records - why would I care if somebody downloads ours? That's such a petty thing to care about."
Filed Under: business models, copyright, file sharing, fleet foxes, music, piracy, quality, robin pecknold
If Consumers Won't 'Pay Up' For Quality, Whose Fault Is It?
from the concept-of-value dept
A post over at News.com is decrying the news that Pioneer is pulling out of the TV market as "sad news", because it means "TV buyers won't pay a premium price for a better display." The post comes from a blog about high-end audio, so presumably, the author is a person who sees the value in paying high prices for certain pieces of electronic gear. But if a firm can't profitably serve a small slice of the market -- people for whom normal audio and video gear isn't good enough -- and decides to stop trying, why is that necessarily a problem for the firm or the market? "The market's demands for lower and lower prices eventually take high-quality manufacturers out of the game." That's simply not true: it will eventually take high-quality manufacturers who can't compete out of the game. The assumption here seems to be that high quality has to come with a high price tag, but the "race to the bottom" the writer decries helps, or at least should help, at the high end of the market as well as the low end. Companies that make gear for any segment of the market have to offer value. If Pioneer's high-end, high-priced TVs couldn't offer sufficient value to attract enough high- or low-end buyers to succeed, that's not an issue with the market, it's a problem with the company and its products.Filed Under: quality
Word Of Mouth Marketing Isn't Effective If Your Product Sucks
from the just-saying... dept
Way too many people seem to think that "word of mouth marketing" is about getting others to spread your marketing message. That is, they think it's about putting words into the mouths of others. But that's not true at all. Real word of mouth marketing is about building a great product, and then letting your customers pass on the news however they see fit. If there's anything to do on the "marketing" side, it's merely to enable the tools for your biggest fans to spread the word, and then get the hell out of the way. However, it appears many marketers still don't understand this concept.Reader Aaron deOliveira writes in to point out a story about Hollywood studios apparently giving up on word of mouth marketing campaigns targeted at "faith-based" audiences promoting certain messages that the studios hoped would resonate with folks who are religious. In the article, they toss up all sorts of reasons why such campaigns haven't done all that well, but deOliveira points to a blog post by Ben McConnell where he makes a different assertion: perhaps all those word of mouth campaigns failed because the movies just weren't that good. It's just that the studios are so sure of their product that they never even noticed it. So, once again, it goes back to this: word of mouth marketing is never going to make a lick of difference if your product sucks. Rather than focusing on such things, concentrate on making a good product first -- and then worry about the marketing campaign. And if the campaign fails -- recognize that maybe it's got something to do with the product.
Filed Under: buzz, hype, marketing, quality, word of mouth
