May 5, 2024

Soapbox: The Video Store, Reinvented by Necessity

A hippie revival session? A flash-mob theatrical performance?

No. Just another night at Vidiots, one of the Los Angeles area’s last independent video stores.

Over the years, the spread of video-purveying giants like Netflix and Redbox has sounded a death knell for smaller brick-and-mortar video stores, even as some of the Goliaths, including Blockbuster, have faltered themselves.

But through it all, a few scrappy Davids have held on. And now, in the face the latest assault on their base — in the form of Netflix’s online streaming service — they are struggling to stay afloat by rethinking their business models. They are tapping into new revenue streams in ways that may seem quaint and old-fashioned, but that are proving to be culturally astute and financially viable.

“We just got so into survival mode,” Patty Polinger, co-owner of Vidiots, said of the decision she and her business partner, Cathy Tauber, made to throw the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass and start changing their store’s modus operandi after 26 years.

A campy sing-along night is just one component of their plan. Since Vidiots, a beloved institution among the area’s movie cognoscenti and stars, opened a sleek space called the Annex a year ago, it has offered a “Film Studies” program. It has had classes on anime mythology; lectures by filmmakers like Larry Clark (“Kids”); and spoken-word events, known as Tail Spin, where participants deliver improvised monologues on a theme (for example, “the stranger”) for five minutes before the thread is picked up by someone else.

Physically, too, the Annex symbolizes a new era. Its clean, modern design bears no resemblance to the graffiti-covered walls of the video store, which feels more like a basement clubhouse.

The special events have been integral to Vidiots’ transformation from a strictly retail business to a cultural hub and community center. They are intended as a riposte to what the store’s fans regard as the nameless, faceless quality of services like Netflix.  

“We felt that with Netflix and the Internet, what we should be focusing on was community and people talking to each other,” Ms. Polinger said. “We just wanted to go the other extreme and be more interpersonal.”

The changes have helped strengthen the store financially, she says. Whereas at one time “I felt like we were in freefall mode, I now feel we’ve stabilized,” she says.

Other retailers are thinking along the same lines as Ms. Polinger. This fall, Videology, a rare video store in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, is opening a cafe and bar, where a dozen kinds of beer will be on tap, and movie screenings and trivia nights will take place.

And at CineFile Video in Los Angeles, long a mecca for Fassbinder and Godard enthusiasts, Josh Fadem, a comedian who works as a clerk at the store, occasionally performs a free stand-up act.

The movement toward community-building goes beyond marketing. It is also tapping into a cultural impulse to connect with something, or someone, in a digital age. In this way, it is not all that different from the local food movement, or a decision to buy asparagus at a farmer’s market instead of at a superstore. 

Consumers a need “to have a choice, and the choice is in support of independent whatever — independent bookstore, independent grocery store, independent video store,” said Milos Stehlik, executive director of Facets Multi-Media, an art house film company in Chicago that exhibits, rents and sells films. Ms. Polinger said Facets, which also runs a series of film classes for children and adults, was an inspiration for Vidiots’ new direction.

“People make an effort to reach out to something real, so the one thing they appreciate here, is we are very knowledgeable,” Mr. Stehlik said. “People who work in the video store are very knowledgeable about film. There’s always a conversation, not just a click. Those kinds of real experiences, you can’t really duplicate when you’re getting a movie out of a vending machine.”

Still, clicking is a tempting convenience, even for purist movie geeks who believe that viewing pictures on anything other than 35mm film is blasphemous.

Maybe there is a third way, incorporating both approaches. Peter Fader, a professor of marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said video stores should position themselves not as an adversary of Netflix, but rather as an alternative.

“What I see happening is that people will use this kind of service as a complement to Netflix,” Professor Fader said. “A lot of movie watching will be on Netflix or video on demand or other sources, but when there is a particular title that’s impossible to find, or a particular event happening — be it a speaker or an activity — it will be something that’s a part of their movie consumption portfolio.

“I think that’s more likely the path to success than being the small, anti-Netflix kind of club,” Professor Fader added, pointing to bookstores’ initially dismissive attitude toward Amazon.com as a lesson in how not to compete with new technologies.

Video stores may get their biggest reprieve as a result of their bête noir. Netflix’s controversial recent 60 percent price increase — for its monthly package of online movie streams along with one DVD by mail at a time — has spawned customer outrage and some cancellations. Furthermore, the notion that Netflix’s future appears to be in online streaming, not DVD’s, may return some business to video stores, given that fewer movie titles are now available via streaming.

“I see a ray of hope with the Netflix thing, and people’s frustration with that,” Ms. Polinger said. “I’ve seen a couple people come in after giving up on Netflix. There’s definitely a backlash.”

Then she paused and sighed.

“Now if we could just be the last one standing.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=13d56e610b7f8401e20c35ee336b4ed0

Watchlist : All Those Online Videos, Still Chasing an Audience

One thing that has characterized these developments is that they haven’t involved many actual, reviewable new series. (One exception was the Kiefer Sutherland vehicle “The Confession” on Hulu, which didn’t cause much of a stir but may be turned into a feature film anyway.)

The notion — driven by the success of Netflix and the rapid convergence of television and Internet technology — that there’s serious money on the horizon in streaming video has led to this latest excitement about Web series and a new interest in the crazy quilt of video sites that carry them. But for the most part there’s still a disconnect between the money and the creators, who range from D.I.Y. independents to successful but largely anonymous production companies.

That’s one of the main reasons that while entertainment and technology giants are talking up the potential of original online video, the average American couldn’t name a Web series if his cat’s life depended on it. When Mike Michaud of the Web-series production company Channel Awesome recently told a reporter for The New York Times, “I believe that sometime in the next one to two years someone will create that one series that gets everyone talking,” he was reiterating a point that could have been made anytime in the last decade. Perhaps that breakthrough will be David Fincher and Kevin Spacey’s “House of Cards,” announced for distribution on Netflix in 2012, though it seems likely that that series, if it comes to pass, could simply blur the distinction between television and original online content into meaninglessness.

In the meantime a prominent player among the sites that aggregate Web shows and sell advertising against them is taking a different approach, one that might be either shrewd or adorably naïve. Blip.tv, which claims to have hosted about 50,000 original series since it was founded in 2005, is not commissioning its own shows from recognizable filmmakers (though it continues an aggressive pursuit of partnerships with people who produce Web content).

Instead it has overhauled its site, based on the premise that there are plenty of series being made now that are good enough to attract large audiences if only viewers can be taken by the hand and led to them. The changes, both cosmetic and philosophical, are meant to set the site apart from competitors like DailyMotion, Vimeo and the 500-pound gorilla of video sharing, YouTube.

A redesign of the Blip.tv home page last month has resulted in a sleek, uncluttered template that highlights 12 shows in a grid under the headline “Discover the best in original Web series.” They are unlabeled, but floating your cursor over one of them brings up a larger box with the show’s title and a description.

Farther down the page are tabs leading to the most-viewed shows, though without YouTube-style viewership numbers, as well as trending and new shows. But the curatorial function represented by the grid of “best” shows is what Blip is counting on to set itself apart.

Clicking on the grid, then, is a guide to either the overall quality of high-achieving Web series or the commercial instincts of the Blip editorial staff, depending on how much faith you put in the site’s commitment to featuring the best in original Web series.

A look at the 12 shows on display on a recent morning indicated that Blip had some strong preferences, whether they reflected the tastes of the editors or the site’s analysis of its audience. Nine were nonfiction shows — news, education, fashion, music and tech. The best of these, or at least the one with the broadest interest, was a 25-minute newsmagazine called “Al Jazeera Listening Post” with English-language reports on the torture and murder of Pakistani journalists, the “Gay Girl in Damascus” blogger hoax and the objectification of women on Italian television.

The target audience was narrow and homogeneous for a good share of the other shows, though. “HNNCast” from the Hacker News Network spent 15 minutes (fairly fascinating ones) covering the most recent developments in computer hacking, including the LulzSec attacks on Sony. “This Week in Linux” got right down to business: “It’s Tuesday June 7th, 2011, and today we’re going to be taking a hopefully quick look at Mageia Linux Version1.” (Five minutes wasn’t quick enough for me, but I’m not part of the free-software world.)

And two shows provided coverage of the E3 video game conference. “Retroware TV” took a Siskel-and-Ebert approach, with its two hosts standing in the crowds outside the Los Angeles Convention Center and critiquing the presentations, while “Video Games Awesome!” gave Microsoft’s news conference the “Mystery Science Theater” treatment, except that the five geeky commentators took up half the screen, faced forward and often spoke over each other.

For the nongeek there were music (the live-performance show “Off the Avenue” featured Betty Lou Fox’s cover of “Hallelujah”) and comedy (“Found Footage Festival,” “The Stay-at-Home Dad”) but just one drama in the serialized-fiction mode that defines the Web series for some. It’s called “Casters,” and its first episode introduced the crew of a homemade musician-interview podcast and began to sketch in their neuroses and romantic dilemmas.

Taken as a whole the Blip editors’ selections defined a territory for original Web video series whose borders would include reality TV, sketch comedy, geek-culture channels like G4 and, to a disturbing degree, public-access cable.

At about the same time YouTube was offering its usual chaotic jumble: a Katy Perry music video, a Sounders soccer highlight (Did it know I was visiting Seattle?), an Anthony Weiner parody, a young woman’s eHarmony video biography. That possibly spurious bio had been chosen for the home page, not by an editorial team but by 5,541,778 YouTube users. Make that 5,541,779.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/arts/television/original-online-video-is-still-talked-about-more-than-viewed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Slipstream: The Trouble With the Echo Chamber Online

ON the Web, we often see what we like, and like what we see. Whether we know it or not, the Internet creates personalized e-comfort zones for each one of us.

Give a thumbs up to a movie on Netflix or a thumbs down to a song on Pandora, de-friend a bore on Facebook or search for just about anything on Google: all of these actions feed into algorithms that then try to predict what we want or don’t want online.

And what’s wrong with that?

Plenty, according to Eli Pariser, the author of “The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You.” Personalization on the Web, he says, is becoming so pervasive that we may not even know what we’re missing: the views and voices that challenge our own thinking.

“People love the idea of having their feelings affirmed,” Mr. Pariser told me earlier this month. “If you can provide that warm, comfortable sense without tipping your hand that your algorithm is pandering to people, then all the better.”

Mr. Pariser, the board president of the progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org, recounted a recent experience he had on Facebook. He went out of his way to “friend” people with conservative politics. When he didn’t click on their updates as often as those of his like-minded contacts, he says, the system dropped the outliers from his news feed.

Personalization, he argues, channels people into feedback loops, or “filter bubbles,” of their own predilections.

Facebook did not respond to e-mails seeking comment.

In an ideal world, the Web would be a great equalizer, opening up the same unlimited vistas to everyone. Personalization is supposed to streamline discovery on an individual level.

It’s certainly convenient.

If you type “bank” into Google, the search engine recognizes your general location, sending results like “Bank of America” to users in the United States or “Bank of Canada” to those north of the border. If you choose to share more data, by logging into Gmail and enabling a function called Web history, Google records the sites you visit and the links you click. Now if you search for “apple,” it learns and remembers whether you are looking for an iPad or a Cox’s Orange Pippin.

If you’re a foodie, says Jake Hubert, a Google spokesman, “over time, you’ll see more results for apple the fruit not for Apple the computer, and that’s based on your Web history.”

The same idea applies at Netflix. As customers stream movies, the recommendation system not only records whether those viewers generally enjoy comedies but also can fine-tune suggestions to slapstick or more cerebral humor, says John Ciancutti, the company’s vice president for personalization technology.

But, in a effort to single out users for tailored recommendations or advertisements, personalization tends to sort people into categories that may limit their options. It is a system that cocoons users, diminishing the kind of exposure to opposing viewpoints necessary for a healthy democracy, says Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist and the author of “You Are Not a Gadget.”

“People tend to get into this echo chamber where more and more of what they see conforms to the idea of who some software thinks they are — like a Nascar dad who likes samurai swords,” Mr. Lanier says. “You start to become more and more like the image of you because that is what you are seeing.”

Mr. Lanier, who is currently doing research at a Microsoft lab, emphasized that his comments were his own personal opinions.

If you want to test your own views on personalization, you could try a party trick Mr. Pariser demonstrated earlier this year during a talk at the TED conference: ask some friends to simultaneously search Google for a controversial term like gun control or abortion. Then compare results.

“It’s totally creepy if you think about it,” said Tze Chun, a filmmaker who agreed to participate in a similar experiment at a recent dinner party we both attended in Brooklyn. Five of us used our phones to search for “Is Osama really dead?,” a phrase Mr. Chun suggested.

Although our top 10 results included the same link — to Yahoo Canada answers — in first place, two of us also received a link to a post on jewishjournal.com, a newspaper site. Meanwhile, Mr. Chun and two other filmmakers had links to more conspiratorial sites like deadbodies.info.

For Mr. Chun, who visits a variety of true-crime Web sites as part of his screenplay research but tends to favor sites that sell vintage T-shirts in his private life, the personalization felt a little too, well, personal.

“You are used to looking at the Internet voyeuristically,” he said. “It’s weird to have the Internet looking back at you and saying, ‘Yeah, I remember things about what you have done’ and gearing the searches to those sites.”

With television, people can limit their exposure to dissenting opinions simply by flipping the channel, to, say, Fox from MSNBC. And, of course, viewers are aware they’re actively choosing shows. The concern with personalization algorithms is that many consumers don’t understand, or may not even be aware of, the filtering methodology.

Personalized Web services, Mr. Pariser says, could do more to show users a wider-angle view of the world.

But some of the most popular sites say they have already built diversity into their personalization platforms.

“People value getting information from a wide variety of perspectives, so we have algorithms in place designed specifically to limit personalization and promote variety in the results page,” said Mr. Hubert, the Google spokesman. He added that the company looked forward to “carefully reviewing Mr. Pariser’s analysis of this important issue.”

At Netflix, the system recommends a mix of titles, some with high confidence of viewer enjoyment and others about which it is less sure, Mr. Ciancutti says. Netflix’s flat monthly rate for unlimited streaming, he adds, encourages people to select films, like documentaries, that they might not have chosen otherwise.

INDIVIDUAL users could also do their part.

Mr. Pariser suggests people sign up for a range of feeds on Twitter, where the posts are unfiltered. Mr. Lanier suggests Tea Party members swap laptops for a day with progressives and observe the different results that turn up on one another’s search engines.

If we don’t chip away at the insulation of consensus, they caution, the promise of the World Wide Web could give way to a netherworld of narcissism Net.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=dfd8417973bb6ecafd713408d34c998a

Drilling Down: Caught Up in the Online Video Stream

Online video gained few viewers over the 12-month period ended Jan. 31. The number of people who watched videos online in January was only 3.1 percent higher than in January 2010, according to the Nielsen Company.

But the average viewer spent far more time glued to the screen. On average, viewers of online video spent 4 hours 39 minutes watching in January, an almost 45 percent increase from the period a year earlier, according to Nielsen.

The change appears to reflect the growth in popularity of sites including Netflix and Hulu that stream long-form video to viewers.

Those two sites fed about 232,000 more streams in January than in the period a year earlier. ALEX MINDLIN

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2ebe0394493fbb440b55cf384220913a