"In a little more than 18 months, Mary Dillon, athlete, marathoner and the mother of four children, has taken the world's largest hamburger chain to venues its founder Ray Kroc could not have imagined.While Dillon, 45, who was named executive vice president and global chief marketing officer of McDonald's Corp. in September 2005, hasn't yet run a guerrilla marketing campaign, she has introduced the buttoned-down company to YouTube, Webisodes (short Web-based episodes), cell phone text messaging in Japan and podcasts, all places where its young adult and "forever young" customers now are found.
"It creates buzz and fun about the brand," Dillon said.While Dillon is not reinventing the "I'm lovin' it" marketing message made famous by her predecessor, Larry Light, in 2003, she is tweaking how that message is getting to the fast-food giant's customers by crafting campaigns for the Internet, mobile phones and other alternative outlets." Baltimore Sun 240407
Tuesday 24 April 2007
Friday 20 April 2007
AOL Time Warner Makes Programmes For Web Only
"AOL Tunes in Net Programming
Time Warner unveils Internet unit shows.April 18, 2007
By Leah Messinger
Time Warner on Tuesday unveiled a string of original programming to begin airing on AOL at the end of the year, the latest example of a traditional media company expanding in online entertainment.
But this time around, experts aren’t shouting about the death of cable and TV. Instead, they’re describing AOL’s efforts as necessary steps to stay relevant in what one analyst referred to as the “Post-TV entertainment paradigm.”
AOL’s newly unveiled lineup includes five online programs that will tie in with either cable shows, company-produced movies, or successful game shows. Specifically, the company will air an online version of the Gold Rush game show, an Ellen DeGeneres show tie-in, and a competition to win a tropical island.
The announcement follows last week’s partnership of CBS with Microsoft, Joost, Comcast, and others to distribute shows via a new Internet Audience Network. Last month, NBC Universal joined with News Corp. for an online video distribution network.
“You have to place your bets more broadly now,” said analyst Greg Sterling. He cited Comcast’s recent purchase of online movie ticketer Fandango as yet another example. Comcast also plans to launch Fancast this summer as a national entertainment site.
Analysts say AOL’s plan could make it more attractive to viewers. One aspect of that plan is to focus on original programming produced by the likes of Mark Burnett, DreamWorks Animation, and Endemol.
It’s not only about the big names behind the effort, but also that the site will feature original content. By contrast, the focus of CBS’ recent deal is on more widespread syndication of pre-existing shows.
Four out of five of the new programs are game shows, which are cheaper to produce. Analysts say AOL is likely to use the lower-cost shows to explore how willing viewers will be to get their TV from a computer. “They could find out much more quickly on the Internet whether these things will have traction,” said Mr. Sterling.
The most significant challenge may be for the companies creating the shows, which integrate advertising and combine community judging, social networking, and video.
“It’s a whole different set of players that we have to deal with,” said Endemol’s vice president of digital media, Jon Vlassopulos. He added that to develop the shows, his company is now actively seeking additional staff with more digital interactive and gaming experience." Red Herring
Time Warner unveils Internet unit shows.April 18, 2007
By Leah Messinger
Time Warner on Tuesday unveiled a string of original programming to begin airing on AOL at the end of the year, the latest example of a traditional media company expanding in online entertainment.
But this time around, experts aren’t shouting about the death of cable and TV. Instead, they’re describing AOL’s efforts as necessary steps to stay relevant in what one analyst referred to as the “Post-TV entertainment paradigm.”
AOL’s newly unveiled lineup includes five online programs that will tie in with either cable shows, company-produced movies, or successful game shows. Specifically, the company will air an online version of the Gold Rush game show, an Ellen DeGeneres show tie-in, and a competition to win a tropical island.
The announcement follows last week’s partnership of CBS with Microsoft, Joost, Comcast, and others to distribute shows via a new Internet Audience Network. Last month, NBC Universal joined with News Corp. for an online video distribution network.
“You have to place your bets more broadly now,” said analyst Greg Sterling. He cited Comcast’s recent purchase of online movie ticketer Fandango as yet another example. Comcast also plans to launch Fancast this summer as a national entertainment site.
Analysts say AOL’s plan could make it more attractive to viewers. One aspect of that plan is to focus on original programming produced by the likes of Mark Burnett, DreamWorks Animation, and Endemol.
It’s not only about the big names behind the effort, but also that the site will feature original content. By contrast, the focus of CBS’ recent deal is on more widespread syndication of pre-existing shows.
Four out of five of the new programs are game shows, which are cheaper to produce. Analysts say AOL is likely to use the lower-cost shows to explore how willing viewers will be to get their TV from a computer. “They could find out much more quickly on the Internet whether these things will have traction,” said Mr. Sterling.
The most significant challenge may be for the companies creating the shows, which integrate advertising and combine community judging, social networking, and video.
“It’s a whole different set of players that we have to deal with,” said Endemol’s vice president of digital media, Jon Vlassopulos. He added that to develop the shows, his company is now actively seeking additional staff with more digital interactive and gaming experience." Red Herring
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Internet television growth
"The number of IPTV subscribers grew 166% in 2006, hitting 7.2 million worldwide, with continued strong growth forecast through 2010
IPTV service provider revenue jumped 178% in 2006 to $2.8 billion worldwide, with growth expected to continue in the double to triple digits every year worldwide
EMEA is the leading region for IPTV service revenue, accounting for 49% of the worldwide total in 2006, followed by Asia Pacific with 35%
Worldwide IP set-top box revenue dipped a bit in the fourth quarter but nearly tripled from 2005 to 2006, reaching $455 million (up 195%)
Motorola maintains its worldwide lead in the IP set-top box market in 2006; Amino Communications moves up to 2nd place, while Yuxing moves down to 3rd." infonetics.com
IPTV service provider revenue jumped 178% in 2006 to $2.8 billion worldwide, with growth expected to continue in the double to triple digits every year worldwide
EMEA is the leading region for IPTV service revenue, accounting for 49% of the worldwide total in 2006, followed by Asia Pacific with 35%
Worldwide IP set-top box revenue dipped a bit in the fourth quarter but nearly tripled from 2005 to 2006, reaching $455 million (up 195%)
Motorola maintains its worldwide lead in the IP set-top box market in 2006; Amino Communications moves up to 2nd place, while Yuxing moves down to 3rd." infonetics.com
Vivendi mobile game promoted via MySpace
"Vivendi is promoting its latest mobile title Surviving High School 07 through MySpace, offering competition winners a chance to appear in the game.
Five randomly selected winners will have an in-game avatar named after them and created to look like their likenesses, as well as receiving a Motorola handset with the game pre-loaded.
"This creative contest involves some of the most notable names in interactive entertainment and communication with Motorola, MySpace, a variety of wireless providers and Vivendi Games Mobile all coming together to select the next mobile gaming stars," commented Paul Maglione, president of Vivendi Games Mobile.
"We wanted to take customisation and community involvement to the next level and create one of the most unique opportunities imaginable for mobile gamers and MySpace users."
Surviving High School 07 is an original IP developed for Vivendi Games Mobile by Centerscore." Mobile-industry.biz April 18 2007
Five randomly selected winners will have an in-game avatar named after them and created to look like their likenesses, as well as receiving a Motorola handset with the game pre-loaded.
"This creative contest involves some of the most notable names in interactive entertainment and communication with Motorola, MySpace, a variety of wireless providers and Vivendi Games Mobile all coming together to select the next mobile gaming stars," commented Paul Maglione, president of Vivendi Games Mobile.
"We wanted to take customisation and community involvement to the next level and create one of the most unique opportunities imaginable for mobile gamers and MySpace users."
Surviving High School 07 is an original IP developed for Vivendi Games Mobile by Centerscore." Mobile-industry.biz April 18 2007
Lose weight playing videogames?!
"DANIEL Jaramillo stands like an aerobics instructor in front of 40 fourth-graders, arguing over what game level to play.
"Break a sweat?" he asks before selecting a stage.
"No," they answer, though they've been dancing for at least 15 minutes.
The exercise has gone this way: Jamarillo picks a song in a video game called "Dance Dance Revolution." He stands on a dance pad, and as the level begins, he tries to move in time with the arrows that whisk their way down a projection screen behind him. The class follows Jaramillo's lead and tries to keep up on their pads. They shuffle about, madly missing a few steps.
When the song's finished, some of the kids are out of breath.
Again, Jaramillo asks if they've perspired. The children refuse to admit anything. They want to go faster. Jaramillo responds, picking a level with a thumping techno beat.
The Cesar Chavez Elementary School students cheer.
For them, video games usually mean sitting down and thumbing their way through a shooter, virtual soccer or "Smackdown! vs. Raw 2006," but instead, they're at the Moscone Center in San Francisco dancing around and enjoying it. They were taking part in the recent International Health, Racquet and Sportclub Association's trade show (IHRSA) and convention.
At a time when childhood obesity is in the headlines and critics are blaming everything from television to fast food for the problem, video games have not gone unnoticed.
A 2004 study by the University of Texas at Austin said that overweight kids were more likely to play video games moderately. Researchers checked the body mass index of more than 2,800 kids while recording their activities. Another 2004 report in Obesity Research associated gaming to overweight kids in Switzerland. In that study, researchers from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University Hospital of Zurich measured the health of over 800 elementary school-aged students and calculated their relative activity.
"A lot of children aren't getting enough exercise," says Michael Levy, the chairman of IHRSA, a trade group for the health and fitness industry. "Nine million children are obese."
But what titles such as "Dance Dance Revolution" and "Wii Sports" are trying to do is change that couch potato image of players.
"This is a video game for kids who need physical education but don't like sports," said Marc Franklin, a spokesman for Konami, the company that makes "DDR."
The game as a fitness device has attracted the interest of West Virginia officials who have installed the title in all of their public schools, he said. An accompanying study found that children who consistently played the game improved their health.
"The fitness level of kids increased," says Franklin. "It stopped kids from gaining weight and improved their self-confidence."
Even adults can lose weight playing video games. Blogger Mickey DeLorenzo caused a stir online last year with his Wii Sports Experiment Web site (wiinintendo.net). After getting the console, he spent six weeks playing the packed-in title for 30 minutes a day, trying to keep to the same schedule, and he lost nine pounds.
"Finding out that it worked was a complete shock," he said. "I kept track of my weight three times a day, I would write it down in a journal. I had figured maybe 2 to 4 pounds, but when I finished calculating and saw 9 pounds, I knew this was going to be a big deal."
During his personal study, he found Wii boxing burned the most calories (125 in a 15-minute period) followed by tennis (92) and bowling (77).
DeLorenzo says that he believes "Wii Sports" can have an affect on childhood obesity.
"If a kid is playing Wii Sports instead of watching TV, of course they'll be burning calories," he stated via e-mail. "Will it stop childhood obesity? Probably not on a global scale, but, like I said, in certain cases, it will replace nonactive activities with active ones and that's better than nothing."
Josh Trout, a Cal State Chico professor in the kinesiology department, hears stories like DeLorenzo's often. But despite the personal anecdotes, he says there haven't been many scientific studies on gaming and weight loss.
Still, without much research, he says that "exergaming" has been gaining momentum in the educational field.
"Every year I see a few more booths dealing with exergaming," Trout says. "I think P.E. programs are buying into it because it sells. Kids buy into it. My guess is that Nintendo Wii will be squeaking its way into P.E. curriculum. As long as kids are getting their heart rate up, it's a good thing."
For fourth-grade teacher Geri Almanza, there's a practical reason for having "DDR" in her classroom and students' homes. As one of the staff members watching the Cesar Chavez elementary students, she couldn't help but play the game herself.
Almanza is familiar with "DDR." She's played it before in the arcades in Mexico City. And now, dancing with her students, she sees plenty of ways in which the game can help them. It can be used for rainy days or afternoons when it's too hot outside, she says.
For a generation of kids raised on video games, these titles are a way to be active while having fun. It's not running laps in gym class, but it does have its own benefits.
Alamanza says a majority of her kids spend hours in front of the TV playing anyway, and for children who live in urban environments, this game may be more important because it could be one of the only ways they can get exercise.
"A lot of these kids live in the Mission District and they don't have backyards," she says. "It makes exercising accessible to them."
For fourth-grader Sergio Recinos, playing "DDR" was a blast. He says he usually plays war games, and this was his first time with a dance title.
"The notes were going so fast, you had trouble seeing the arrows," he says, but that didn't discourage him. "I want to play this game every day."
There's a reason for this, though. Like in many games, the developer presents you with a challenge, gives you feedback and there's an innate desire to get better, to beat it.
In this case, Sergio says he has big plans. He wants to perfect his dance steps." By Gieson Cacho, MEDIANEWS STAFF
"Break a sweat?" he asks before selecting a stage.
"No," they answer, though they've been dancing for at least 15 minutes.
The exercise has gone this way: Jamarillo picks a song in a video game called "Dance Dance Revolution." He stands on a dance pad, and as the level begins, he tries to move in time with the arrows that whisk their way down a projection screen behind him. The class follows Jaramillo's lead and tries to keep up on their pads. They shuffle about, madly missing a few steps.
When the song's finished, some of the kids are out of breath.
Again, Jaramillo asks if they've perspired. The children refuse to admit anything. They want to go faster. Jaramillo responds, picking a level with a thumping techno beat.
The Cesar Chavez Elementary School students cheer.
For them, video games usually mean sitting down and thumbing their way through a shooter, virtual soccer or "Smackdown! vs. Raw 2006," but instead, they're at the Moscone Center in San Francisco dancing around and enjoying it. They were taking part in the recent International Health, Racquet and Sportclub Association's trade show (IHRSA) and convention.
At a time when childhood obesity is in the headlines and critics are blaming everything from television to fast food for the problem, video games have not gone unnoticed.
A 2004 study by the University of Texas at Austin said that overweight kids were more likely to play video games moderately. Researchers checked the body mass index of more than 2,800 kids while recording their activities. Another 2004 report in Obesity Research associated gaming to overweight kids in Switzerland. In that study, researchers from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University Hospital of Zurich measured the health of over 800 elementary school-aged students and calculated their relative activity.
"A lot of children aren't getting enough exercise," says Michael Levy, the chairman of IHRSA, a trade group for the health and fitness industry. "Nine million children are obese."
But what titles such as "Dance Dance Revolution" and "Wii Sports" are trying to do is change that couch potato image of players.
"This is a video game for kids who need physical education but don't like sports," said Marc Franklin, a spokesman for Konami, the company that makes "DDR."
The game as a fitness device has attracted the interest of West Virginia officials who have installed the title in all of their public schools, he said. An accompanying study found that children who consistently played the game improved their health.
"The fitness level of kids increased," says Franklin. "It stopped kids from gaining weight and improved their self-confidence."
Even adults can lose weight playing video games. Blogger Mickey DeLorenzo caused a stir online last year with his Wii Sports Experiment Web site (wiinintendo.net). After getting the console, he spent six weeks playing the packed-in title for 30 minutes a day, trying to keep to the same schedule, and he lost nine pounds.
"Finding out that it worked was a complete shock," he said. "I kept track of my weight three times a day, I would write it down in a journal. I had figured maybe 2 to 4 pounds, but when I finished calculating and saw 9 pounds, I knew this was going to be a big deal."
During his personal study, he found Wii boxing burned the most calories (125 in a 15-minute period) followed by tennis (92) and bowling (77).
DeLorenzo says that he believes "Wii Sports" can have an affect on childhood obesity.
"If a kid is playing Wii Sports instead of watching TV, of course they'll be burning calories," he stated via e-mail. "Will it stop childhood obesity? Probably not on a global scale, but, like I said, in certain cases, it will replace nonactive activities with active ones and that's better than nothing."
Josh Trout, a Cal State Chico professor in the kinesiology department, hears stories like DeLorenzo's often. But despite the personal anecdotes, he says there haven't been many scientific studies on gaming and weight loss.
Still, without much research, he says that "exergaming" has been gaining momentum in the educational field.
"Every year I see a few more booths dealing with exergaming," Trout says. "I think P.E. programs are buying into it because it sells. Kids buy into it. My guess is that Nintendo Wii will be squeaking its way into P.E. curriculum. As long as kids are getting their heart rate up, it's a good thing."
For fourth-grade teacher Geri Almanza, there's a practical reason for having "DDR" in her classroom and students' homes. As one of the staff members watching the Cesar Chavez elementary students, she couldn't help but play the game herself.
Almanza is familiar with "DDR." She's played it before in the arcades in Mexico City. And now, dancing with her students, she sees plenty of ways in which the game can help them. It can be used for rainy days or afternoons when it's too hot outside, she says.
For a generation of kids raised on video games, these titles are a way to be active while having fun. It's not running laps in gym class, but it does have its own benefits.
Alamanza says a majority of her kids spend hours in front of the TV playing anyway, and for children who live in urban environments, this game may be more important because it could be one of the only ways they can get exercise.
"A lot of these kids live in the Mission District and they don't have backyards," she says. "It makes exercising accessible to them."
For fourth-grader Sergio Recinos, playing "DDR" was a blast. He says he usually plays war games, and this was his first time with a dance title.
"The notes were going so fast, you had trouble seeing the arrows," he says, but that didn't discourage him. "I want to play this game every day."
There's a reason for this, though. Like in many games, the developer presents you with a challenge, gives you feedback and there's an innate desire to get better, to beat it.
In this case, Sergio says he has big plans. He wants to perfect his dance steps." By Gieson Cacho, MEDIANEWS STAFF
EA & Endemol
"New online avatar concept Virtual Me to debut with new series of reality show:
Super-publisher EA has entered into a creative partnership with media giant Endemol, the firm responsible for shows like Big Brother, Fame Academy and Deal or No Deal. EA will be combining its avatar creation technology with Endemol’s most popular TV formats to enable consumers to meet, compete and socialise in a new online world.“With Virtual Me we are at the forefront of a new, hybrid form of entertainment that takes gaming beyond the console,” said EA executive vice president and general manager Gerhard Florin. “Endemol is a great partner to help us bring together the best of TV and video games for an offering that can appeal to mass market audiences and change the face of entertainment.”Chief creative officer at Endemol Peter Bazalgette added: “We’re told that people are starting to spend more time online than they are watching TV. Both markets are now important and this has huge implications for content creators. Our opportunity with Electronic Arts is to develop ideas that fully embrace the way people are consuming entertainment today.” "
Super-publisher EA has entered into a creative partnership with media giant Endemol, the firm responsible for shows like Big Brother, Fame Academy and Deal or No Deal. EA will be combining its avatar creation technology with Endemol’s most popular TV formats to enable consumers to meet, compete and socialise in a new online world.“With Virtual Me we are at the forefront of a new, hybrid form of entertainment that takes gaming beyond the console,” said EA executive vice president and general manager Gerhard Florin. “Endemol is a great partner to help us bring together the best of TV and video games for an offering that can appeal to mass market audiences and change the face of entertainment.”Chief creative officer at Endemol Peter Bazalgette added: “We’re told that people are starting to spend more time online than they are watching TV. Both markets are now important and this has huge implications for content creators. Our opportunity with Electronic Arts is to develop ideas that fully embrace the way people are consuming entertainment today.” "
Viacom vs Google's YouTube
Copyright complexity in the new media age:
"What happens when two of media's biggest players butt heads? Lawyers see dollar signs.
That's because the $1 billion lawsuit Viacom filed against Google in March 2007 could generate $350 million or more in legal fees, industry experts estimate.
Will the two companies rack up those kind of bills? Probably not: Conventional wisdom holds that Google and Viacom are engaged in a very public game of chicken. Viacom, according to that logic, has accused Google's YouTube of "massive copyright infringement" simply as a negotiation tactic."
"What happens when two of media's biggest players butt heads? Lawyers see dollar signs.
That's because the $1 billion lawsuit Viacom filed against Google in March 2007 could generate $350 million or more in legal fees, industry experts estimate.
Will the two companies rack up those kind of bills? Probably not: Conventional wisdom holds that Google and Viacom are engaged in a very public game of chicken. Viacom, according to that logic, has accused Google's YouTube of "massive copyright infringement" simply as a negotiation tactic."
Old media types need to go new media pt 1: 4kids
"4Kids Entertainment's results finished the 2006 financial year with a net income of $71.8 million, a figure that is appreciably less than the 80.6 million of 2005. The company registered a net loss of a million dollars, against the net profit of 5.1 million of the previous year. According to Alfred R. Kahn, CEO of the company, the "disappointing" results were due to "the decreased licensing revenue from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Yu-Gi-Oh!, as well as a decline in ad sales from 4Kids TV"." Kidscreen
Old media types going new media pt 3: Turner
"Cartoon Network and Viz Media's joint online portal Toonami Jetstream (www.toonamiJetstream.com) has added Zatch Bell! to its lineup; the site launched in 2006." Kidscreen
Old media types going new media pt 2: 3Line
"Ex-CiTV controller Estelle Hughes has teamed up with partners Teresa Reed and Mark Taylor to launch new production and consulting outfit 3Line Media in London, England.
The company will be set up to offer services in three distinctive areas: creative production, production management and executive consultancy. The production department will be headed by Taylor, owner and founder of Bristol-based animation house A Productions. The management arm is under the purview of Reed, former head of production at Chorion, and Hughes's consulting unit deals with all aspects of the media industry, from channel launches, to co-productions, to broadcast schedules.3Line also intends to develop its own IP, including a preschool animated series and an interactive mobile series for young adults that are already in the works." Kidscreen
The company will be set up to offer services in three distinctive areas: creative production, production management and executive consultancy. The production department will be headed by Taylor, owner and founder of Bristol-based animation house A Productions. The management arm is under the purview of Reed, former head of production at Chorion, and Hughes's consulting unit deals with all aspects of the media industry, from channel launches, to co-productions, to broadcast schedules.3Line also intends to develop its own IP, including a preschool animated series and an interactive mobile series for young adults that are already in the works." Kidscreen
Old media types going new media pt 1: Eisner
"Former Disney chief Michael Eisner's The Tornante Company has announced the formation of a new independent studio that will produce and distribute original content for the internet and other digital platforms.
The newly dubbed prodco Vuguru is entering the market with the goal of providing story-driven narrative content for the digital space. Its first kick at the can will be teen centric Prom Queen, an 80 x 90-second serialized drama that will look at the final two months of high school leading up to the senior prom.
The eps will be on PromQueen.tv, as well as Veoh.com and on youtube.com. The Tornante Company is also be looking to secure deals for other platforms including mobile. On the promotions side, the series has already inked sponsorship deals with FJI Water, Pom Wonderful,Teleflora.com,Victoria's Secret Pink and HotKiss." Kidscreen
The newly dubbed prodco Vuguru is entering the market with the goal of providing story-driven narrative content for the digital space. Its first kick at the can will be teen centric Prom Queen, an 80 x 90-second serialized drama that will look at the final two months of high school leading up to the senior prom.
The eps will be on PromQueen.tv, as well as Veoh.com and on youtube.com. The Tornante Company is also be looking to secure deals for other platforms including mobile. On the promotions side, the series has already inked sponsorship deals with FJI Water, Pom Wonderful,Teleflora.com,Victoria's Secret Pink and HotKiss." Kidscreen
Tuesday 17 April 2007
Reasons To Get Into New Media
Everyone knows that new media has forever changed the old media world, but there are still lots of companies involved with licensing that have yet to take the plunge and reinvent their businesses.
Please feel confident and understand that new media actually removes a lot of the frustrations of trying to get your job done in old media.
Take the typical case of a newly created animated character. The creator loves the character and wants lots of people to see it and enjoy it, then make him famous and rich by watching the animations and buying the spin-off products.
Fair enough, but in the old media world his only option to create global public awareness was to persuade sizeable companies to produce and broadcast the animations on TV or in a movie.
Since it costs a fair few thousand in any currency to achieve such an aim, the creator had to face a sticky issue - loss of control over his destiny and his creative authority.
Yep, the companies putting up the cash don't want some pesky entertainer messing up their balance sheets, their schedules and their merchandising departments.
But let's say that the miracle occurs and, after some years elapse, the animations finally get on air and the next step is to offer character merchandise to retailers. Oh dear.
That can be very difficult and take a very long time. And even if the head office buyer says your stuff can go in her shops, the store managers will appear determined to hide the stock, so that no irritating members of the public can find it, with a view to buying it.
All hail then, the world wide web and its many wonders: audience testing - when can you start?; global audience - no problem; clearly visible merchandise - visit the ecommerce shop; character downloads for mobile phones - ready in a jiffy and for a snip.
Imagine the creator building an Arctic Monkeys style momentum with the public online, without some stuffy old corporations holding him up.
Then, he can get the same corporations lining up, begging for a licence so that they can share the benefits of the animated character's popularity. Which all keeps the destiny and creativity right under his control.
Please feel confident and understand that new media actually removes a lot of the frustrations of trying to get your job done in old media.
Take the typical case of a newly created animated character. The creator loves the character and wants lots of people to see it and enjoy it, then make him famous and rich by watching the animations and buying the spin-off products.
Fair enough, but in the old media world his only option to create global public awareness was to persuade sizeable companies to produce and broadcast the animations on TV or in a movie.
Since it costs a fair few thousand in any currency to achieve such an aim, the creator had to face a sticky issue - loss of control over his destiny and his creative authority.
Yep, the companies putting up the cash don't want some pesky entertainer messing up their balance sheets, their schedules and their merchandising departments.
But let's say that the miracle occurs and, after some years elapse, the animations finally get on air and the next step is to offer character merchandise to retailers. Oh dear.
That can be very difficult and take a very long time. And even if the head office buyer says your stuff can go in her shops, the store managers will appear determined to hide the stock, so that no irritating members of the public can find it, with a view to buying it.
All hail then, the world wide web and its many wonders: audience testing - when can you start?; global audience - no problem; clearly visible merchandise - visit the ecommerce shop; character downloads for mobile phones - ready in a jiffy and for a snip.
Imagine the creator building an Arctic Monkeys style momentum with the public online, without some stuffy old corporations holding him up.
Then, he can get the same corporations lining up, begging for a licence so that they can share the benefits of the animated character's popularity. Which all keeps the destiny and creativity right under his control.
Glossary
Scared of technobabble? Fear no more! The easy-to-follow new media jargon buster will have you running rings around wise-ass tech heads at networking events. For smalltalk superiority, visit www.atnewmedia.com/glossary
The Beautiful Game Is A Licensing Pain
Football is the most popular sport in the world and it is understandable that interactive content companies want to offer games.
However, the intellectual property rights situation could not be more complicated.
There are two main choices: a playing simulation game or a management game.
For a playing simulation game, gamers will expect to see favourite footballers, representing club and national teams, in stadia, wearing branded kit, managed by famous coaches, kicking branded balls and trying to win famous tournaments:
- Knockout cups, national club leagues, international club leagues, continental championships and, ultimately, the FIFA World Cup.
For a management game, they would not expect to see all of those elements physically, but they would expect them all to be named.
The major US sports have a co-ordinated approach to all of this. Each governing body - whether the NBA or MLB or NHL or NFL - can organise 2 licences to deliver all of those elements: one for the players and one for the rest.
Football offers the opposite, with the most complex and unravelled rights situation imaginable.
One reason for the unstoppable success of EA Sports’ FIFA annual franchise on consoles, which they are now managing themselves for mobile, is the licensing effort they put in.
There are about 170 licences incorporated in the FIFA games and Electronic Arts employs a whole department of lawyers to manage the negotiations, variations and renewals.
Nobody notices, but there is actually a lot missing from a FIFA game, because even the mighty EA cannot get the rights. For example, try finding anything Dutch…clubs and players in the Netherlands mostly refuse to license their rights.
EA has been adding wireless rights to its contracts, which is another barrier to entry for specialist mobile games companies.
What can you do about it?
Urge the football authorities to license collectively?
Make a better game than FIFA?
License one element to endorse the game: player or manager or kit brand?
These and other options also have complications. You will need an experienced licensing expert to help you.
However, the intellectual property rights situation could not be more complicated.
There are two main choices: a playing simulation game or a management game.
For a playing simulation game, gamers will expect to see favourite footballers, representing club and national teams, in stadia, wearing branded kit, managed by famous coaches, kicking branded balls and trying to win famous tournaments:
- Knockout cups, national club leagues, international club leagues, continental championships and, ultimately, the FIFA World Cup.
For a management game, they would not expect to see all of those elements physically, but they would expect them all to be named.
The major US sports have a co-ordinated approach to all of this. Each governing body - whether the NBA or MLB or NHL or NFL - can organise 2 licences to deliver all of those elements: one for the players and one for the rest.
Football offers the opposite, with the most complex and unravelled rights situation imaginable.
One reason for the unstoppable success of EA Sports’ FIFA annual franchise on consoles, which they are now managing themselves for mobile, is the licensing effort they put in.
There are about 170 licences incorporated in the FIFA games and Electronic Arts employs a whole department of lawyers to manage the negotiations, variations and renewals.
Nobody notices, but there is actually a lot missing from a FIFA game, because even the mighty EA cannot get the rights. For example, try finding anything Dutch…clubs and players in the Netherlands mostly refuse to license their rights.
EA has been adding wireless rights to its contracts, which is another barrier to entry for specialist mobile games companies.
What can you do about it?
Urge the football authorities to license collectively?
Make a better game than FIFA?
License one element to endorse the game: player or manager or kit brand?
These and other options also have complications. You will need an experienced licensing expert to help you.
Video clips for mobile
The exciting and rapid growth of TV and video within the mobile content industry is giving rise to some very significant intellectual property rights issues.
Leaving aside streaming television, the main area is video clips for mobiles. Many mobile content providers are actively seeking rights.
There are two main types of potential content - footage that has already been broadcast on television and footage that has not.
Among content providers, famous TV comedy series are the most popular genre. To secure the mobile rights is complicated, because there are so many rights owners potentially involved. And none of them foresaw the mobile content revolution when they made their telly shows.
For example, “Only Fools And Horses” is probably the UK’s favourite comedy series of all time, containing some of the most-loved comedy moments.
To get the mobile rights to those scenes where Del Boy falls through the bar or the chandelier falls into the next room, who needs to give you a contract?
The scriptwriter John Sullivan? The broadcaster the BBC? The ‘talent’ David Jason and Nicholas Lyndhurst? The composer of the theme and incidental music? Anyone else?
Nobody knows yet and they are all talking about how to resolve it.
This is encouraging content providers to pursue rights that are cleaner, quicker and easier to secure. In particular, new productions that are made with the mobile phone in mind.
In response, a worldwide army of talented animators and film-makers is emerging, focussed on the needs of the mobile platform and its users.
They are delighted to have their work exposed to a broader public. Therefore, dealing with them is a lot quicker and easier than dealing with proven ‘old media’ people.
An early example is ‘”Cat Bastard”, licensed to Cyoshi Mobile by the creator and featuring funny and bloody 20 second animated clips. A modern day “Road Runner and Wiley Coyote”, except the cat always kills the dog.
It will not be long before the tables turn and television companies start coming to the mobile content industry, seeking the rights to make TV shows featuring characters made popular on mobile.
Leaving aside streaming television, the main area is video clips for mobiles. Many mobile content providers are actively seeking rights.
There are two main types of potential content - footage that has already been broadcast on television and footage that has not.
Among content providers, famous TV comedy series are the most popular genre. To secure the mobile rights is complicated, because there are so many rights owners potentially involved. And none of them foresaw the mobile content revolution when they made their telly shows.
For example, “Only Fools And Horses” is probably the UK’s favourite comedy series of all time, containing some of the most-loved comedy moments.
To get the mobile rights to those scenes where Del Boy falls through the bar or the chandelier falls into the next room, who needs to give you a contract?
The scriptwriter John Sullivan? The broadcaster the BBC? The ‘talent’ David Jason and Nicholas Lyndhurst? The composer of the theme and incidental music? Anyone else?
Nobody knows yet and they are all talking about how to resolve it.
This is encouraging content providers to pursue rights that are cleaner, quicker and easier to secure. In particular, new productions that are made with the mobile phone in mind.
In response, a worldwide army of talented animators and film-makers is emerging, focussed on the needs of the mobile platform and its users.
They are delighted to have their work exposed to a broader public. Therefore, dealing with them is a lot quicker and easier than dealing with proven ‘old media’ people.
An early example is ‘”Cat Bastard”, licensed to Cyoshi Mobile by the creator and featuring funny and bloody 20 second animated clips. A modern day “Road Runner and Wiley Coyote”, except the cat always kills the dog.
It will not be long before the tables turn and television companies start coming to the mobile content industry, seeking the rights to make TV shows featuring characters made popular on mobile.
Slicensing
‘Slicensing’ is a brilliantly descriptive word used by brand owners, to remind themselves that it is always unwise to grant any licensee more rights than it can fully exploit.
It refers to the practice of slicing up rights i.e. defining each licence according to the true development and distribution capabilities of the licensee.
The opportunity cost of giving too many rights away invariably pains the brand owner, when other potential licensees come along later with viable propositions that cannot be pursued, because the rights are lying idle in the hands of the first licensee.
For example, the following definition would lead to regrets: “An exclusive worldwide licence for interactive games, to be played on all platforms now existing or emerging during the term of the agreement.”
Just as similar wording did in the case of Paramount Pictures’ ten year Star Trek licence with Activision, which began in the mid-1990s with PC, PlayStation, Game Boy and N64 in mind, but without anticipating the emergence of games for mobile, web, plug-in, IDTV etc.
That later prevented Paramount managing the Star Trek brand’s entry into the new markets and the agreement reportedly ended early, with acrimony between licensor and licensee.
Much more sensible to phrase the licence specifically, for example: “A non-exclusive licence for North America and the European Union for interactive games on the platform of mobile telephones.”
That would leave the brand owner free to reach agreements with strong publishers for every other platform and territory.
Naturally, the licensee/ publisher has the opposite point of view. Each would love to receive a broad grant of rights. Maybe even sub-license some rights to expert publishers for each other territory or platform, to lay off some of their costs.
However, licensees will understand that there is little point having rights that you cannot exploit. Also, that the broader the grant of rights, the higher the minimum guarantee of royalties required by the brand owner.
Fair and reasonable allocation of rights by the licensor according to the true strengths of the licensee is good for both parties.
It refers to the practice of slicing up rights i.e. defining each licence according to the true development and distribution capabilities of the licensee.
The opportunity cost of giving too many rights away invariably pains the brand owner, when other potential licensees come along later with viable propositions that cannot be pursued, because the rights are lying idle in the hands of the first licensee.
For example, the following definition would lead to regrets: “An exclusive worldwide licence for interactive games, to be played on all platforms now existing or emerging during the term of the agreement.”
Just as similar wording did in the case of Paramount Pictures’ ten year Star Trek licence with Activision, which began in the mid-1990s with PC, PlayStation, Game Boy and N64 in mind, but without anticipating the emergence of games for mobile, web, plug-in, IDTV etc.
That later prevented Paramount managing the Star Trek brand’s entry into the new markets and the agreement reportedly ended early, with acrimony between licensor and licensee.
Much more sensible to phrase the licence specifically, for example: “A non-exclusive licence for North America and the European Union for interactive games on the platform of mobile telephones.”
That would leave the brand owner free to reach agreements with strong publishers for every other platform and territory.
Naturally, the licensee/ publisher has the opposite point of view. Each would love to receive a broad grant of rights. Maybe even sub-license some rights to expert publishers for each other territory or platform, to lay off some of their costs.
However, licensees will understand that there is little point having rights that you cannot exploit. Also, that the broader the grant of rights, the higher the minimum guarantee of royalties required by the brand owner.
Fair and reasonable allocation of rights by the licensor according to the true strengths of the licensee is good for both parties.
Mobile Market Entry
Interesting issues are raised by the recent announcement that Kayak Synergenix has secured the licence from Sony Pictures to produce mobile games, based on the much-anticipated 2006 movie of the best-selling book ‘The Da Vinci Code’.
Why? Because we all thought that Sony Pictures’ entry into the mobile content market with its brands was being handled by its internal mobile department.
What happened?
The last movie to be licensed for mobile games by Sony Pictures was an agreement I negotiated for ‘Men In Black 2’ on behalf of Digital Bridges (now called I-Play) in 2002.
After that, Sony Pictures established its internal mobile team and, since then, no brands have been available for licensing.
Along with other subjective people, I rudely told them that it would not work, that their core business is making movies and TV series, that dealing with network operators and porting mobile content to multiple handsets is complicated and costly.
That they should heed the comparable past lessons of the costly failures of internal console game departments within certain Hollywood studios.
That they would have to recruit a large and expensive team worldwide and the revenues would not justify it, in the short to medium term.
Have we been proved correct? It has been noticeable that many of the talented people employed at Sony Pictures Mobile have moved on to other interesting roles recently.
Warner Bros followed the same in-house route as Sony Pictures. Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Universal Studios have so far used the licensing method.
The strategic choice of market entry is an important one for brand owners large and small. They must balance risk versus return.
It can be boiled down to a choice of four market entry methods, based on selecting the method of handling the four main functions. The functions are Development, Technology, Marketing and Distribution.
The methods are Self-Publish (do everything), Co-Publish (share functions), Self Develop (make the content but outsource everything else) or License (grant brand rights and enable the Licensee to manage the functions.)
Why? Because we all thought that Sony Pictures’ entry into the mobile content market with its brands was being handled by its internal mobile department.
What happened?
The last movie to be licensed for mobile games by Sony Pictures was an agreement I negotiated for ‘Men In Black 2’ on behalf of Digital Bridges (now called I-Play) in 2002.
After that, Sony Pictures established its internal mobile team and, since then, no brands have been available for licensing.
Along with other subjective people, I rudely told them that it would not work, that their core business is making movies and TV series, that dealing with network operators and porting mobile content to multiple handsets is complicated and costly.
That they should heed the comparable past lessons of the costly failures of internal console game departments within certain Hollywood studios.
That they would have to recruit a large and expensive team worldwide and the revenues would not justify it, in the short to medium term.
Have we been proved correct? It has been noticeable that many of the talented people employed at Sony Pictures Mobile have moved on to other interesting roles recently.
Warner Bros followed the same in-house route as Sony Pictures. Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Universal Studios have so far used the licensing method.
The strategic choice of market entry is an important one for brand owners large and small. They must balance risk versus return.
It can be boiled down to a choice of four market entry methods, based on selecting the method of handling the four main functions. The functions are Development, Technology, Marketing and Distribution.
The methods are Self-Publish (do everything), Co-Publish (share functions), Self Develop (make the content but outsource everything else) or License (grant brand rights and enable the Licensee to manage the functions.)
"How Much Is The Licence?"
‘How much does the licence cost?’ is a question that brand owners hear often from prospective licensees.
It sounds like a fair question. It is not easy to answer. There is no price list in licensing and no two licensing agreements are the same.
All of the variable terms of the licence must be balanced during the negotiations. You want a 10 year term? The minimum guarantee should go up. You want to pay a high advance? The royalty rate should come down.
The main variable terms are: Property, Products, Territory, Term, Royalty, Advance and Guarantee.
Other variable terms include: Exclusivity, Approvals procedures, Renewal options, Performance targets and Marketing investment.
There are no hard and fast rules for arriving at the advance and guarantee, but there are tried and tested methods.
The best way is to start with the licensee’s sales forecast. If you publish mobile games, how many of the games would you expect to sell during the term of the licence?
The forecast is multiplied by the royalty rate, to arrive at the royalty forecast.
The rule of thumb states that 25% of the royalty forecast should be paid as the advance and 75% guaranteed during the term.
For example, under a 2 year licence with a 10% royalty rate, the licensee forecasts 500,000 downloads of the games and receives €2 per game.
500,000 x €2 = €1,000,000 x 10% = €100,000. Advance €25,000 and guarantee €75,000 by the end of the 2 years.
Like all forecasting, it is educated guesswork, but this is a fairer method than the brand owner plucking a figure from thin air. In most cases, that figure is far more than the licensee is willing to accept.
However, in the mobile content market guidelines derived from the mature licensed merchandise market have been largely ignored, due to the ‘land grab’ mentality of the industry.
Licensees initially chased the brands that they thought operators and consumers would like. Licensors initially grabbed the biggest cheques.
As the market matures, more considered and business-like choices will be made.
It sounds like a fair question. It is not easy to answer. There is no price list in licensing and no two licensing agreements are the same.
All of the variable terms of the licence must be balanced during the negotiations. You want a 10 year term? The minimum guarantee should go up. You want to pay a high advance? The royalty rate should come down.
The main variable terms are: Property, Products, Territory, Term, Royalty, Advance and Guarantee.
Other variable terms include: Exclusivity, Approvals procedures, Renewal options, Performance targets and Marketing investment.
There are no hard and fast rules for arriving at the advance and guarantee, but there are tried and tested methods.
The best way is to start with the licensee’s sales forecast. If you publish mobile games, how many of the games would you expect to sell during the term of the licence?
The forecast is multiplied by the royalty rate, to arrive at the royalty forecast.
The rule of thumb states that 25% of the royalty forecast should be paid as the advance and 75% guaranteed during the term.
For example, under a 2 year licence with a 10% royalty rate, the licensee forecasts 500,000 downloads of the games and receives €2 per game.
500,000 x €2 = €1,000,000 x 10% = €100,000. Advance €25,000 and guarantee €75,000 by the end of the 2 years.
Like all forecasting, it is educated guesswork, but this is a fairer method than the brand owner plucking a figure from thin air. In most cases, that figure is far more than the licensee is willing to accept.
However, in the mobile content market guidelines derived from the mature licensed merchandise market have been largely ignored, due to the ‘land grab’ mentality of the industry.
Licensees initially chased the brands that they thought operators and consumers would like. Licensors initially grabbed the biggest cheques.
As the market matures, more considered and business-like choices will be made.
Approvals Issues
The approvals process is the Achilles heel of licensing.
What is it?
Who is involved?
Why does it go wrong?
How can you manage it smoothly?
Under the terms of any licensing agreement, the intellectual property is ‘on loan’ from the licensor (brand owner) to the licensee (content provider.)
Every use made by the licensee of the brand - for products, services or marketing collateral of any kind - requires approval in advance from the licensor.
Network operators add complication, by taking the original materials and surrounding them with their own marketing collateral.
If anything is released into public view that a licensor has not approved in advance, they are entitled to insist that it is withdrawn.
When that happens, it means a lot of cost and hassle for the content provider and its customers.
Brand owners fear one thing above everything else – loss of control over their brand image.
To a content provider, the project may be the most important thing in the world, but for a famous brand owner it is merely one of many businesses.
If it becomes embarrassing, the brand owner is entitled to amputate it, before it infects the whole brand.
Going through approvals makes content development a lot harder. Under time pressures and with a lack of assets, it is very tempting to short-cut the licensor’s requirements.
Also, licensors can unreasonably reject approvals submissions, or contradict their comments from an earlier submission stage.
To transform pitfalls into potential, planning and communication is the key. Always try to follow these steps:
- Plan a production schedule that allows enough time for licensor approvals and stick to it;
- Licensee and licensor must meet at the beginning of the development process and explain clearly to each other what they need;
- Licensor must provide the best assets and guidance that it can;
- Approvals submissions should be made at 3 main stages: concept design, prototype and pre-production.
The licensor understands its brand’s strengths best and the licensee understands the mobile content market best. When the two meet in the middle, success is assured.
What is it?
Who is involved?
Why does it go wrong?
How can you manage it smoothly?
Under the terms of any licensing agreement, the intellectual property is ‘on loan’ from the licensor (brand owner) to the licensee (content provider.)
Every use made by the licensee of the brand - for products, services or marketing collateral of any kind - requires approval in advance from the licensor.
Network operators add complication, by taking the original materials and surrounding them with their own marketing collateral.
If anything is released into public view that a licensor has not approved in advance, they are entitled to insist that it is withdrawn.
When that happens, it means a lot of cost and hassle for the content provider and its customers.
Brand owners fear one thing above everything else – loss of control over their brand image.
To a content provider, the project may be the most important thing in the world, but for a famous brand owner it is merely one of many businesses.
If it becomes embarrassing, the brand owner is entitled to amputate it, before it infects the whole brand.
Going through approvals makes content development a lot harder. Under time pressures and with a lack of assets, it is very tempting to short-cut the licensor’s requirements.
Also, licensors can unreasonably reject approvals submissions, or contradict their comments from an earlier submission stage.
To transform pitfalls into potential, planning and communication is the key. Always try to follow these steps:
- Plan a production schedule that allows enough time for licensor approvals and stick to it;
- Licensee and licensor must meet at the beginning of the development process and explain clearly to each other what they need;
- Licensor must provide the best assets and guidance that it can;
- Approvals submissions should be made at 3 main stages: concept design, prototype and pre-production.
The licensor understands its brand’s strengths best and the licensee understands the mobile content market best. When the two meet in the middle, success is assured.
Frog Spawns Merchandise
Mobile was never going to be a proper media platform until it began to generate its own original intellectual properties and take them into the mainstream. That turning point has been reached and it is frog-shaped.
The Annoying Thing aka Crazy Frog has exploded into the public consciousness worldwide in a short six month period.
Sweden is the home country of the two creators. Daniel Malmedahl developed the sound, which inspired Erik Wernquist to animate the character.
Originating on the internet, the character and the associated ‘beh ding ding’ sound were launched on to mobile phones by Jamster in early 2005 and became their most popular character and ringtone.
From advertising mobile downloads, Jamster broke UK advertising frequency records as it moved on to advertising a single, which mixed the sound with the Axel F tune.
According to independent media analysts, Jamster spent £10 million on UK television airtime and generated over 36,000 messages in the month of May. The nearest high frequency advertiser was McDonalds, with under 10,000 messages.
The single shot to number one in the UK charts for 4 weeks, outselling Coldplay and U2 and going platinum with over 600,000 sales. The first single and an album are now being released worldwide.
All of this has made The Annoying Thing the hottest character in worldwide licensing today, with scores of licensees signing up to produce hundreds of items of merchandise.
The opportunities for the rights owners are certainly plentiful, but so are the associated pitfalls. Many individuals and organisations all over the world queue up for a piece of the action when a property is hot -and few of them are interested in protecting the interests of the rights owner.
Reconciling permission with control is the key to grasping such a tiger by its tail and only experienced licensing professionals can know how to achieve that.
The Annoying Thing aka Crazy Frog has exploded into the public consciousness worldwide in a short six month period.
Sweden is the home country of the two creators. Daniel Malmedahl developed the sound, which inspired Erik Wernquist to animate the character.
Originating on the internet, the character and the associated ‘beh ding ding’ sound were launched on to mobile phones by Jamster in early 2005 and became their most popular character and ringtone.
From advertising mobile downloads, Jamster broke UK advertising frequency records as it moved on to advertising a single, which mixed the sound with the Axel F tune.
According to independent media analysts, Jamster spent £10 million on UK television airtime and generated over 36,000 messages in the month of May. The nearest high frequency advertiser was McDonalds, with under 10,000 messages.
The single shot to number one in the UK charts for 4 weeks, outselling Coldplay and U2 and going platinum with over 600,000 sales. The first single and an album are now being released worldwide.
All of this has made The Annoying Thing the hottest character in worldwide licensing today, with scores of licensees signing up to produce hundreds of items of merchandise.
The opportunities for the rights owners are certainly plentiful, but so are the associated pitfalls. Many individuals and organisations all over the world queue up for a piece of the action when a property is hot -and few of them are interested in protecting the interests of the rights owner.
Reconciling permission with control is the key to grasping such a tiger by its tail and only experienced licensing professionals can know how to achieve that.
THE NEW MEDIA CHANNEL
“I only use my mobile phone for making voice calls.”
If I had been given a fiver every time that comment was made to me by a traditional consumer products licensing manager, I would be able to afford a Vertu handset. Vertu is the Rolls Royce of mobile phones, with prices starting at about £3,000.
Technophobes, generally aged 35 plus, may not contemplate learning how and why to download logos, ringtones, games, video clips, pictures, voice messages and more. But technophiles, generally under 35, regard it as an exciting and entertaining activity.
A marketer’s job is not to consider their personal preferences, but to respond to the wants and needs of their customers.
The younger generation has grown up with technology and the mobile phone is the first media device to be personal to the user. TVs, cinemas, computers and radios have to be shared with other people.
And suddenly, at the 2005 New York Licensing Show in June, it was apparent that the licensing industry has woken up to the potential of mobile content:
- Famous brands from all sources are being licensed in to mobile content, for example movies such as Star Wars and videogames such as Tony Hawk’s Skateboarding.
- Brand creators desperate to build public awareness, to support licensing campaigns, are seeing mobile as an alternative media platform. They reckon it is easier and quicker than trying to get an animated TV series on air.
- For the first time, there are original properties going the other way: emerging from the mobile media platform into mainstream merchandising, most notably The Annoying Thing aka Crazy Frog.
Best of all for Licensors and Licensing Agents, suffering from reducing royalties in traditional categories, mobile content companies are paying far too much for licences currently, because the market is new and very competitive and because they have start-up investor money behind them.
The future of mobile content is very bright, but just like any product category, licensors must pick the best licensees according to their production and distribution capabilities, as well as their sensitivity to the brand’s values.
If I had been given a fiver every time that comment was made to me by a traditional consumer products licensing manager, I would be able to afford a Vertu handset. Vertu is the Rolls Royce of mobile phones, with prices starting at about £3,000.
Technophobes, generally aged 35 plus, may not contemplate learning how and why to download logos, ringtones, games, video clips, pictures, voice messages and more. But technophiles, generally under 35, regard it as an exciting and entertaining activity.
A marketer’s job is not to consider their personal preferences, but to respond to the wants and needs of their customers.
The younger generation has grown up with technology and the mobile phone is the first media device to be personal to the user. TVs, cinemas, computers and radios have to be shared with other people.
And suddenly, at the 2005 New York Licensing Show in June, it was apparent that the licensing industry has woken up to the potential of mobile content:
- Famous brands from all sources are being licensed in to mobile content, for example movies such as Star Wars and videogames such as Tony Hawk’s Skateboarding.
- Brand creators desperate to build public awareness, to support licensing campaigns, are seeing mobile as an alternative media platform. They reckon it is easier and quicker than trying to get an animated TV series on air.
- For the first time, there are original properties going the other way: emerging from the mobile media platform into mainstream merchandising, most notably The Annoying Thing aka Crazy Frog.
Best of all for Licensors and Licensing Agents, suffering from reducing royalties in traditional categories, mobile content companies are paying far too much for licences currently, because the market is new and very competitive and because they have start-up investor money behind them.
The future of mobile content is very bright, but just like any product category, licensors must pick the best licensees according to their production and distribution capabilities, as well as their sensitivity to the brand’s values.
The Legal Basis For Intellectual Property
Proud of your property? Confused about copyright? Troubled by trade marks? Perplexed about patents?
What makes intellectual property rights legally enforceable and how do your protect your company?
My I.P. lawyer friends will hopefully shower me with gifts, for mentioning first that you should seek their expert guidance.
A ‘quick start’ guide is:
An intellectual property might be a design, a logo, a text, a software programme, a model, a manufacturing process or similar creation.
The creator of the original work automatically holds the copyright, unless they agree to assign it to someone else.
An example of assignment would be a photo-shoot, commissioned by a company to promote its product range, when the photographer agrees that copyright in the pictures will belong to the client.
A trade mark is usually the brand name and logo of a company or product or service. The first trade mark ever registered in the UK was the red triangle logo of Bass Ales.
It also covers distinctive shapes associated with a brand, most famously the Coca Cola bottle.
A trade mark is not a trade mark, until it has been registered and accepted by the appropriate authority in each country or region.
The legal and registration requirements vary by country, as does the cost.
Including legal advice, in the UK allow up to £1,000 to register one trade mark in one class of goods.
There is a UK Trade Mark Registrar and also a European Union ‘harmonisation’ trade mark registration facility.
There are 42 ‘Classes Of Goods’ and it is necessary to register the trade mark in each class that is relevant to your I.P.
Class 9 is the most relevant for interactive games in the UK.
Once protected, an intellectual property, if used without the approval of the owner, will result in a challenge to the unauthorised user.
Piracy and its implications will be the subject of later articles.
More information about UK registration of trade marks, patents and designs is available online at www.patent.gov.uk
What makes intellectual property rights legally enforceable and how do your protect your company?
My I.P. lawyer friends will hopefully shower me with gifts, for mentioning first that you should seek their expert guidance.
A ‘quick start’ guide is:
An intellectual property might be a design, a logo, a text, a software programme, a model, a manufacturing process or similar creation.
The creator of the original work automatically holds the copyright, unless they agree to assign it to someone else.
An example of assignment would be a photo-shoot, commissioned by a company to promote its product range, when the photographer agrees that copyright in the pictures will belong to the client.
A trade mark is usually the brand name and logo of a company or product or service. The first trade mark ever registered in the UK was the red triangle logo of Bass Ales.
It also covers distinctive shapes associated with a brand, most famously the Coca Cola bottle.
A trade mark is not a trade mark, until it has been registered and accepted by the appropriate authority in each country or region.
The legal and registration requirements vary by country, as does the cost.
Including legal advice, in the UK allow up to £1,000 to register one trade mark in one class of goods.
There is a UK Trade Mark Registrar and also a European Union ‘harmonisation’ trade mark registration facility.
There are 42 ‘Classes Of Goods’ and it is necessary to register the trade mark in each class that is relevant to your I.P.
Class 9 is the most relevant for interactive games in the UK.
Once protected, an intellectual property, if used without the approval of the owner, will result in a challenge to the unauthorised user.
Piracy and its implications will be the subject of later articles.
More information about UK registration of trade marks, patents and designs is available online at www.patent.gov.uk
Does licensing stifle creativity?
Games developers often regard me with suspicion.
I know, you are right. How can this be?
They view me as the evil nemesis to their creative force, because I negotiate licensing agreements to bring brands from other categories into wireless content.
They proclaim, “Why are we licensing brands, when we should be coming up with our own original intellectual properties?”
They quote examples like Lara Croft, Sonic The Hedgehog and Final Fantasy. Each began as a videogame and was then licensed in the opposite direction: spawning movies and TV shows and duvet covers and toys and birthday cakes and so on.
Absolutely correct. Any healthy industry needs a mixture of self-created products and brands, alongside licensed brands.
Incidentally, if you think that you have launched a property in mobile, with the potential consumer following to support extension by licensing, please let me know.
I can introduce you to those companies that make all kinds of products (including cakes and toys), who might pay you royalties.
An analysis of the console games charts for 2004 reveals an approximate split of 50% games made under license (for example, FIFA and Tony Hawk’s Skateboarding) and 50% original brands (for example, Driver and Grand Theft Auto).
Wireless content, on the other hand, is dominated by licensed brands. A recent Vodafone top 10 games chart contained 5 licensed and 5 generic games - and none that could be described as original IP.
Why is that? Will it change?
It is mainly because, as an industry in this early phase, we need to grab the attention of consumers and help them to understand what type of entertainment they can expect.
It will change as the ‘tipping point’ of end-user involvement is reached. Also, as the value of the industry grows and becomes profitable for the companies involved.
Developers, operators and content providers will then have more enthusiasm for launching new content and original brands.
The successful ones will really appreciate and utilise the distinctive strengths of the mobile platform.
I know, you are right. How can this be?
They view me as the evil nemesis to their creative force, because I negotiate licensing agreements to bring brands from other categories into wireless content.
They proclaim, “Why are we licensing brands, when we should be coming up with our own original intellectual properties?”
They quote examples like Lara Croft, Sonic The Hedgehog and Final Fantasy. Each began as a videogame and was then licensed in the opposite direction: spawning movies and TV shows and duvet covers and toys and birthday cakes and so on.
Absolutely correct. Any healthy industry needs a mixture of self-created products and brands, alongside licensed brands.
Incidentally, if you think that you have launched a property in mobile, with the potential consumer following to support extension by licensing, please let me know.
I can introduce you to those companies that make all kinds of products (including cakes and toys), who might pay you royalties.
An analysis of the console games charts for 2004 reveals an approximate split of 50% games made under license (for example, FIFA and Tony Hawk’s Skateboarding) and 50% original brands (for example, Driver and Grand Theft Auto).
Wireless content, on the other hand, is dominated by licensed brands. A recent Vodafone top 10 games chart contained 5 licensed and 5 generic games - and none that could be described as original IP.
Why is that? Will it change?
It is mainly because, as an industry in this early phase, we need to grab the attention of consumers and help them to understand what type of entertainment they can expect.
It will change as the ‘tipping point’ of end-user involvement is reached. Also, as the value of the industry grows and becomes profitable for the companies involved.
Developers, operators and content providers will then have more enthusiasm for launching new content and original brands.
The successful ones will really appreciate and utilise the distinctive strengths of the mobile platform.
VALUE OF BRANDS
Mobile is the last media channel and it has adopted famous brands far more quickly than any preceding channel.
Television, radio, cinema and the internet all have two characteristics that limit them compared to mobile phones: none of them is personal to the user and none of them is mainly intended for inter-personal communication.
Each person’s mobile phone is theirs alone, therefore we all want to use ours to personalise and interact in our own way.
One way to exhibit our personal preferences is through our favourite brands. Favourite football team, music, movie, fashion, videogame, comic, TV show, consumer product, celebrity and book.
Looking at games, as just one type of wireless content, reveals these brands and many others being brought to mobile phones: FIFA, Tiger Woods, The Weakest Link, Fox Sports, Lord Of the Rings, Star Wars, 50 Cent, Scooby Doo, Spider-man, Looney Tunes, UPA Pool, Tomb Raider, Winnie The Pooh, Space Invaders and Harry Potter.
Licensing is the principal method by which famous brands travel from their original category into other categories.
Licensing is defined as the granting of rights, in return for remuneration, for intellectual property owned by one party to another party, in order to gain audience awareness, effect market positioning and add value to commercial products and services through association.
In 2003, the worldwide licensing industry was worth approximately $170 billion at consumer prices.
The largest categories for licensed goods were clothing (34%) and toys (11%). Mobile handsets and wireless content are included within the broad categories of Electronics and Software, together accounting for 8% of the retail value at $15 billion. (Sources: License! and LIMA.)
How is this achieved? Which companies take part in the value chain? How do they benefit? How are deals structured? How can your company keep ahead of the competition?
Television, radio, cinema and the internet all have two characteristics that limit them compared to mobile phones: none of them is personal to the user and none of them is mainly intended for inter-personal communication.
Each person’s mobile phone is theirs alone, therefore we all want to use ours to personalise and interact in our own way.
One way to exhibit our personal preferences is through our favourite brands. Favourite football team, music, movie, fashion, videogame, comic, TV show, consumer product, celebrity and book.
Looking at games, as just one type of wireless content, reveals these brands and many others being brought to mobile phones: FIFA, Tiger Woods, The Weakest Link, Fox Sports, Lord Of the Rings, Star Wars, 50 Cent, Scooby Doo, Spider-man, Looney Tunes, UPA Pool, Tomb Raider, Winnie The Pooh, Space Invaders and Harry Potter.
Licensing is the principal method by which famous brands travel from their original category into other categories.
Licensing is defined as the granting of rights, in return for remuneration, for intellectual property owned by one party to another party, in order to gain audience awareness, effect market positioning and add value to commercial products and services through association.
In 2003, the worldwide licensing industry was worth approximately $170 billion at consumer prices.
The largest categories for licensed goods were clothing (34%) and toys (11%). Mobile handsets and wireless content are included within the broad categories of Electronics and Software, together accounting for 8% of the retail value at $15 billion. (Sources: License! and LIMA.)
How is this achieved? Which companies take part in the value chain? How do they benefit? How are deals structured? How can your company keep ahead of the competition?
Wirelessville
The mobile content industry veteran stood with the new recruit on top of the hill, overlooking the sprawling town of Wirelessville.
He explained “I am a veteran of this industry and moved to this town to work on mobile content in the early days – way back in 1999!
“Look at all the different sizes and types of buildings and streets, representing the different types of companies toiling away here.
“In ’99, most of this was fields. The buildings were modest dwellings and there were none of the office blocks being built by cranes that you see today.
“The inhabitants were pioneers and entrepreneurs. Techno geeks, some would cruelly call them. But they all had a vision of the day when you would be able to play games, change your ringtone, access the internet, get your email, watch video clips, gamble and do all those other things on your mobile phone.
“Steam rose from the dwellings in those days, as they sought the answers to questions like ‘What is the business model?’, ‘Can we make money out of WAP before Java and 3G?’ and, most relevant to my job, ‘Can we license some famous brands to give our stuff instant popularity?’
“The largest building in those days was the conference centre. Look, the conference organisers made so much money, out of hosting debates about those questions, that today they are having the roof clad in gold!
“At the other extreme, many were casualties of those early struggles. For example, behold the ruins of Riot E House with the words ‘Curse Marvel!’ scrawled in fading red paint on the wall. Some say they paid over $1 million for an X Men WAP game.
“Some houses look a bit crowded, don’t they? That’s where two companies have had to move in together, to survive the winter of modest revenues and hang on for the summer of large profits!
“Now, behold those tall buildings at the top of that grand parade. Those are the hallowed towers of the Network Operators.
“See the long queue of Content Providers along the grand parade? At the head of that queue are the early pioneers who found the right business model, made the right content and signed the right licences. They have names like Jamdat and Digital Bridges.
“I helped to lever open the doors of those tall buildings for Digital Bridges by negotiating their first deal with that god of the parallel videogames universe, Electronic Arts. The power of effective licensing was seen, as the Operators threw open all of their doors and sat seductively on their desks begging for some FIFA and Tiger Woods!
“At the back of the queue are the New Arrivals. They saw the bandwagon rolling through the neighbouring towns and jumped on it a bit too late. Many of them are what I call Dotcom Refugees. Now, they face a long wait in line to be allowed access to the Operators.
“They make my job trickier by tabling ridiculous bids for licences, in desperate attempts to gain distribution. I have to persuade Brand Owners that my clients will pay them more in the long term, because they already supply the Operators.
“See the posh suburban houses on the outskirts of the town? That’s were the Brand Owners live. They have old money, made from TV shows, movies, sports, music, comics, books and associated merchandise. Now, they are making increasing amounts of cash from using their brands for mobile content.
“Some have chosen to set up a direct line to the Operators and a huge internal team to manage it all. Others prefer the lower risk option of licensing their brands to the Content Providers on the grand parade.
“All along the grand parade are various shops, which trade with the content providers. They offer goods and services like aggregation, development, testing, localisation, recruitment, advertising, PR and web portals.
“In this town, pawnbrokers have been renamed Venture Capitalists!
“My shop is there, see, it’s called AT. It introduces Content Providers and Brand Owners to each other, for happy long-term licensing relationships.
“Let’s go and get a latte or a beer each. Next time, I will start to explain to you how licensing works.”
He explained “I am a veteran of this industry and moved to this town to work on mobile content in the early days – way back in 1999!
“Look at all the different sizes and types of buildings and streets, representing the different types of companies toiling away here.
“In ’99, most of this was fields. The buildings were modest dwellings and there were none of the office blocks being built by cranes that you see today.
“The inhabitants were pioneers and entrepreneurs. Techno geeks, some would cruelly call them. But they all had a vision of the day when you would be able to play games, change your ringtone, access the internet, get your email, watch video clips, gamble and do all those other things on your mobile phone.
“Steam rose from the dwellings in those days, as they sought the answers to questions like ‘What is the business model?’, ‘Can we make money out of WAP before Java and 3G?’ and, most relevant to my job, ‘Can we license some famous brands to give our stuff instant popularity?’
“The largest building in those days was the conference centre. Look, the conference organisers made so much money, out of hosting debates about those questions, that today they are having the roof clad in gold!
“At the other extreme, many were casualties of those early struggles. For example, behold the ruins of Riot E House with the words ‘Curse Marvel!’ scrawled in fading red paint on the wall. Some say they paid over $1 million for an X Men WAP game.
“Some houses look a bit crowded, don’t they? That’s where two companies have had to move in together, to survive the winter of modest revenues and hang on for the summer of large profits!
“Now, behold those tall buildings at the top of that grand parade. Those are the hallowed towers of the Network Operators.
“See the long queue of Content Providers along the grand parade? At the head of that queue are the early pioneers who found the right business model, made the right content and signed the right licences. They have names like Jamdat and Digital Bridges.
“I helped to lever open the doors of those tall buildings for Digital Bridges by negotiating their first deal with that god of the parallel videogames universe, Electronic Arts. The power of effective licensing was seen, as the Operators threw open all of their doors and sat seductively on their desks begging for some FIFA and Tiger Woods!
“At the back of the queue are the New Arrivals. They saw the bandwagon rolling through the neighbouring towns and jumped on it a bit too late. Many of them are what I call Dotcom Refugees. Now, they face a long wait in line to be allowed access to the Operators.
“They make my job trickier by tabling ridiculous bids for licences, in desperate attempts to gain distribution. I have to persuade Brand Owners that my clients will pay them more in the long term, because they already supply the Operators.
“See the posh suburban houses on the outskirts of the town? That’s were the Brand Owners live. They have old money, made from TV shows, movies, sports, music, comics, books and associated merchandise. Now, they are making increasing amounts of cash from using their brands for mobile content.
“Some have chosen to set up a direct line to the Operators and a huge internal team to manage it all. Others prefer the lower risk option of licensing their brands to the Content Providers on the grand parade.
“All along the grand parade are various shops, which trade with the content providers. They offer goods and services like aggregation, development, testing, localisation, recruitment, advertising, PR and web portals.
“In this town, pawnbrokers have been renamed Venture Capitalists!
“My shop is there, see, it’s called AT. It introduces Content Providers and Brand Owners to each other, for happy long-term licensing relationships.
“Let’s go and get a latte or a beer each. Next time, I will start to explain to you how licensing works.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
