November 18, 2024

Stars Gain Control of Online Images

While most people on Twitter use a service like TwitPic, Yfrog or Plixi to share photos with their friends and followers, for celebrities, these services can come with strings attached, as they gain ownership rights to uploaded photos and can sell ads alongside them. A company called WhoSay — a little-known start-up with a clientele that is anything but little known — offers similar services, but grants ownership of the images to the stars themselves.

Operating in “stealth mode” since last year, WhoSay runs from the Los Angeles office building of the Creative Artists Agency, which represents a Rolodex of household names, including Mr. Hanks. His WhoSay site includes “copyright Tom Hanks” branding and a stack of fine print at the bottom asserting his legal ownership of all content, placed against warnings of “fines and imprisonment” for improper use.

WhoSay has about 15 people on staff, with offices in New York and London in addition to the one in Los Angeles, said Steve Ellis, the company’s chief executive. Creative Artists and Amazon.com have minority stakes, among other investors, he said.

The company’s client list, by invitation only and not limited to Creative Artists, includes Kevin Spacey, Jim Carrey, John Cusack, Bill Maher, Johnny Knoxville, Chelsea Handler, Eva Longoria, Spike Lee, Enrique Iglesias, Katie Couric and more. In addition to photo and video hosting, the company’s services include automated copyright branding and a private mobile app that loops in publicists, allowing the celebrities’ Facebook and Twitter updates to be easily controlled by a staff .

By devising ways to protect, manage and eventually make money off celebrity activity on social networks, WhoSay aims to change how famous people behave online.

“We work with people who are constantly being utilized by third parties for the wrong reasons,” said Mr. Ellis, who spoke by phone and sent statements via e-mail. The company was formed, he wrote, “to give celebrities and other influential people a set of tools to allow them to manage and control their presence in the digital world.”

WhoSay seeks to protect against situations like one in January, when Plixi, which hosts images, even made a deal to broker and sell photos uploaded by celebrities through a British news organization. “Celebrity traffic to our site represents 10 to 15 percent of all of our traffic,” said Sean Callahan, a founder of Plixi.com.

“They help keep the service going and make it a profitable venture,” he said.

But sharing profits with the celebrities was not part of the plan, and Plixi quickly reversed the deal after the company was contacted (directly, not via publicist) by a displeased celebrity — Mr. Callahan would not say who.

Celebrities using WhoSay, however, can bypass Plixi (or even Facebook and Twitter) to share content. Instead, they use the company’s secure software to create an update, which is then automatically pushed into their social feeds. For fans, the end result is not noticeably different. For celebrities, it changes a lot.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=13718d82c959eecb0534f3a8ce0e15df

YouTube Is Said to Be Near a Major Film Rental Deal

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers have agreed to rent movies via YouTube, according to two studio executives who spoke on condition of anonymity because they said YouTube wanted to make the announcement. Rental fees are expected to be comparable to those charged by rivals like iTunes.

YouTube, however, has only half of the industry’s top players on board. Still on the sidelines are Walt Disney Studios, which is closely aligned with Apple, and 20th Century Fox and Paramount Pictures. Paramount’s corporate owner, Viacom, is still battling YouTube in court over copyright infringement. These three studios together control about 60 percent of the North American movie market.

YouTube declined to comment on reports of new rental deals. “We’ve steadily been adding more and more titles since launching movies for rent on YouTube over a year ago and now have thousands of titles available,” said YouTube in a statement.

Lionsgate Entertainment, the Weinstein Company and independent filmmakers already make films available for rent on the site for $2 to $4, including “Scary Movie 4,” “3:10 to Yuma” and “Saw.”

But the arrival of bigger Sony, Universal and Warner movies would give the streaming service a shot in the arm as it tries to compete with Apple’s iTunes, Amazon.com and Netflix. YouTube has been trying several strategies to keep people on the site for longer periods as it tries to poach viewers from TV and attract ad dollars.

Despite YouTube’s popularity — people view videos on the site two billion times a day — its film rentals do not appear to have gained much traction.

Still, YouTube offers movie studios more than just viewers, said James L. McQuivey, a digital media analyst at Forrester Research. Google can provide valuable data on how many people have searched for movies and which terms they used to search.

“That’s just a marketing chain of cause and effect that nobody else asking movie studios for rights to rentals can show,” Mr. McQuivey said. “You don’t necessarily need to show that a rental has been blockbuster successful to show a movie studio that it’s an avenue worth pursuing.”

Studios have repeatedly said that their digital strategies involve making on-demand deals with as many legitimate Web sites as they can — reflecting lessons learned from the music industry’s attempt to shut down digital consumption. They are also eager to replace dwindling DVD revenue. The latest rental plans were first reported by TheWrap.com, a movie industry blog.

But the chill between YouTube and Hollywood has taken time to ease. During its first few years, YouTube stood behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and told media companies it was not legally required to remove unauthorized material from its site unless specifically asked to do so by the owner. The stance provoked a $1 billion lawsuit from Viacom and broad animosity from media executives.

The willingness of mainstream studios like Sony, Universal and Warner to finally play ball reflects the work YouTube has done to make its portal look less like an online video garage sale. The site has also made it easier for media companies to take down pirated video content. It does not hurt that a New York federal judge last year sided with YouTube in the Viacom lawsuit; Viacom has since appealed.

“The fact that there’s still a few studios holding out on Google just goes to show you that even though this is an obvious no-brainer decision, the fear of Google still rests heavily on people’s minds,” Mr. McQuivey said. “But eventually they’ll all be there because why on earth would you refuse to put your content in the path of millions of users?”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=dd5fdb6136d1ec9f9de306662cb5c798

Bits: Amazon Cloud Failure Takes Down Web Sites

A major, widespread failure in Amazon’s Web services business took down many Web sites Thursday.

The problems, which began early Thursday morning and had not been completely repaired by late afternoon, affected many Web sites including Quora, Reddit, GroupMe, Scvngr and HootSuite, which all posted messages to their visitors about the issue.

The Web companies use Amazon’s cloud-based Web services to host Web sites, applications, files and other resources. Amazon’s customers range from start-ups like Foursquare to big companies like Pfizer and Nasdaq.

Amazon lets these companies rent space on its servers and take advantage of its big data centers and computing power. But this means that when Amazon’s servers fail, the companies have little control over the situation, highlighting the risks of relying on so-called cloud computing.

Amazon did not respond to requests for comment, but the company is updating the status of its Web services and confirmed the service disruptions. It said it did not know when the services would be restored.

“Our high-level ballpark right now is that the E.T.A. is a few hours,” Amazon wrote at 2:09 p.m. Eastern time. “We can assure you that all hands are on deck to recover as quickly as possible. We will update the community as we have more information.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=29e585c0846c063624e956fa60e80b84

Bucks: Thursday Reading: Low Levels of Radiation Found in Milk

March 31

Thursday Reading: Low Levels of Radiation Found in Milk

Radiation in milk, storing music on Amazon.com, home inventory software and other consumer news from Thursday’s Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=affe570a4a40d7e29be05886156933b4

A Book for Sale on Tax Day, but Online Now

Except that’s not really when it went on sale.

Amazon and Barnes Noble were selling the book on their Web sites on Wednesday, long before many bookstores would receive copies. Nicole Dewey, a spokeswoman for Little, Brown, part of Hachette, said the official on-sale date for the book was March 22, but the publication date — when the book is available everywhere — remained April 15. (A countdown clock on the Hachette Web site ticks away the days, hours and minutes until April 15.)

“I don’t really understand the confusion,” Ms. Dewey said. “This happens all the time. There’s nothing unusual about it.”

It was a distinction lost on many bookstores, who erupted in protest on Wednesday when they heard that Amazon was already selling the hotly anticipated book.

“Outrageous,” said Zack Zook, the general manager and events coordinator at BookCourt, an independent store in Brooklyn. “If stuff like this keeps happening, booksellers are going to start suing publishers.”

Kelly von Plonski, the owner of Subterranean Books in St. Louis, said she was “irate” after hearing on Wednesday that the book was already on sale. She had planned a midnight release party for April 14, the night before she thought the book was being released.

“I’m really, really angry about it,” she said. “Add it to the list of advantages that Amazon has been given.”

Countless stores were left flat-footed.

While Barnes Noble was selling the book on its Web site, several of its outlets in Manhattan and Brooklyn said they had not yet received copies and were not allowed to sell them until April 15.

At Vroman’s Bookstore in Pasadena, Calif., not far from Pomona College, where Mr. Wallace was a professor in the English department when he died, the store had ordered 55 copies but was waiting to put them on display.

Paul Yamazaki, the head buyer at City Lights bookstore in San Francisco, said he had been told “The Pale King” had a strict on-sale date of April 15.

Several distributors told booksellers this week that they would not ship them copies because it was too far away from the publication date in April.

Publishers try to get books in stores by the time media coverage begins, usually before the official publication date. Time magazine is expected to run a lengthy article about “The Pale King” in its next issue.

Mr. Wallace, whose best-known book was “Infinite Jest,” committed suicide in 2008 at the age of 46.

He has since become somewhat of a cult figure, and fan sites devoted to him were abuzz on Wednesday with news that the book had started shipping from Amazon.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0b57d85a9be442b80ae10bb06322d8f1

Bucks: L.L. Bean’s Free-Shipping-Forever Strategy

4:12 p.m. | Updated to add links to the L.L. Bean announcement and the Amazon Prime site. Also updated the Lands’ End reference to reflect its promotions.

L.L. Bean, the venerable outfitter in Freeport, Me., threw in the towel on delivery charges last week and announced that it would offer free shipping from now on. Whether the change portends broader adoption among merchants remains to be seen.

“Our customers told us repeatedly, ‘We would like to not have to pay for shipping,’” Steve Fuller, the company’s chief marketing officer, told me this week. Under the new policy, most purchases will be delivered free in two to five business days with no minimum order. Charges do apply to overnight or one-day delivery.

Like other online retailers, Bean has experimented with free shipping during the holiday season and offered it periodically with orders of a minimum dollar amount. Mr. Fuller said the company was calculating that the free shipping would increase business. That, combined with a shifting of some internal expenses as well as other factors that he declined to elaborate on, will make the change a smart one, he said.

In taking this step, Bean is returning to the free shipping model used in its early days by its founder, Leon Leonwood Bean, as a catalog purveyor of hunting shoes and other outdoorsy items. Mr. Fuller said Bean shipped merchandise free until 1992. The decision to begin charging was much debated, he said, but because he wasn’t at the company at that time, he said he couldn’t comment on Bean’s reasoning.

As to why the company is reinstating free delivery, he noted that people found it easier to back out of sales when ordering online compared with, say, ordering over the phone from a pleasant saleswoman. Shipping charges are visible on the Web site, so shoppers are aware of them before they click the payment button. “One key difference is that on the Internet,” Mr. Fuller said, “shipping is a lot more visible.”

So if L.L. Bean is joining the shoe seller Zappos.com in offering free shipping, why isn’t everyone else? One of Bean’s main competitors, Lands’ End, declined to comment, although it has been offering free shipping promotions this week.

Some sites may be reluctant to drop shipping charges because, oddly enough, they can make money on them. Mr. Fuller declined to name names, but he said an examination of some merchants’ shipping charges suggested a markup. “We never made money on it,” he said, but “I do think some companies make money on it, or recoup their costs.”

Larry Joseloff, vice president of content for Shop.org, the online arm of the National Retail Federation, said he saw more online retailers offering reduced or flat-rate shipping, as a way to set themselves apart from competitors. “It’s a differentiator,” he says. He said customers also had come to expect free shipping, either from periodic promotions or by trolling various Web sites offering coupons for free delivery.

Amazon.com is using a hybrid approach with its Amazon Prime option, in which customers pay an annual fee to qualify for free shipping. But not all online retailers may be able to afford free shipping, Mr. Joseloff notes. Pet stores, for example, might find it difficult to cover the cost of shipping a 40-pound bag of dog food.

That holds true for some oversize items at L.L. Bean, too. Customers shouldn’t expect to have their canoes shipped free, Mr. Fuller said. “There will be some freight charges there.”

How important is free shipping in your online shopping decisions?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=db0247c5eedcefc7b817d23520a3460b

DealBook: EBay to Buy GSI Commerce for $2.4 Billion

DESCRIPTIONJim Wilson/The New York Times EBay’s headquarters in San Jose, Calif.

11:19 a.m. | Updated
In a bid to expand its retail might, online marketplace eBay has agreed to buy GSI Commerce, an Internet marketing services company, for $29.25 a share, or $2.4 billion, eBay announced on Monday.

For eBay, which is best known for its auction site and online payment service PayPal, the addition of GSI will strengthen its position as an online retail powerhouse and make it more competitive with rival Amazon. It is eBay’s biggest acquisition since its $2.6 billion deal for Skype in 2005.

The company is paying a significant premium for GSI, offering its shareholders a 51 percent premium over the closing price on Friday. Shares of GSI surged 51 percent in morning trading, while eBay shares fell 3 percent.

“We intend to lead the next generation of commerce innovation,” eBay’s chief executive, John Donahoe, said in a statement. “With its complementary strengths, GSI will extend the power of our portfolio. With eBay, PayPal, GSI and our global platform capabilities, we are focused on delivering new ways for retailers and brands of all sizes — from sole proprietors to large merchants.”

The deal is expected to close in the third quarter of this year. There is a 40-day “go shop” period during which GSI may consider rival bids.

GSI helps manage the Web sites and online marketing campaigns for several top-tier retail clients, including Toys “R” Us, Aeropostale and Kenneth Cole.

Its suite of services includes payment processing, order management and fulfillment and customer service. Beyond its e-commerce services, the company also owns Retail Convergence, the parent company of Rue La La, which it purchased in October 2009.

With GSI, analysts say, eBay will be able to create a more robust marketplace for its third-party sellers, who have previously relied on competitors, like Amazon, to manage their orders and online marketing efforts.

“EBay can now cross-sell the services that GSI provides to the thousands of power sellers on eBay,” said Jordan Rohan, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. “They are paying a reasonable price to be more competitive with Amazon.”

Under the deal, eBay seems less interested in GSI’s Retail Convergence assets, namely Rue La La, a social shopping service that competes with Web sites like Gilt Groupe and HauteLook, which was purchased by Nordstrom in February.

EBay, according to the company’s statement, will divest itself of 70 percent of Rue La La and ShopRunner, both of which, the company says are not “not core to its long-term growth strategy.” The assets will be placed into a new holding company run by GSI founder Michael Rubin. eBay’s decision to shed the majority of Rue La La is an interesting one, considering eBay’s growing interest in the field. The company purchased a German competitor, brands4friends, late last year for about $200 million in cash. eBay will loan the new holding company $467 million.

In Monday’s press release, eBay said the deal was expected to be accretive in 2012 and generate synergies of about $60 million by 2013

Goldman Sachs and Peter J. Solomon Company are advising eBay, while Dewey LeBoeuf is serving as its legal adviser. Morgan Stanley is advising GSI Commerce, while Morgan, Lewis Bockius is acting as its legal adviser. Davis Polk Wardwell is acting as legal adviser to a special committee of GSI’s board.

EBay’s Biggest Deals:

Skype Technologies Sept. 11, 2005 $2.6 billion
GSI Commerce March 28, 2011 $2.4 billion
PayPal July 7, 2002 $1.4 billion
Gmarket April 15, 2009 $1.2 billion
Bill Me Later Oct. 3, 2008 $905 million
Shopping.com June 1, 2005 $668 million

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/ebay-to-buy-gsi-commerce-for-2-4-billion-bid/?partner=rss&emc=rss