Source: http://gizmodo.com/5849026/hp-and-conde-nast-are-creating-an-unholy-union-to-print-magazines-on-your-home-printer-so-you-can-not-read-them-and-waste-paper-and-buy-more-expensive-ink

HP Wants You to Print Magazines with Your Home Printer So You Can Waste More Paper and Buy More InkTwo wrongs don’t make a right. I think I learned that as a 4-year-old. Apparently, HP and Condé Nast skipped out on that life lesson because they’re combining two dying things—print media and printers—to create the unholiest of unions: your HP printer at home will print out Condé Nast magazines for you to read.

It sounds straight out of the webpages of the Onion but it’s true, Condé Nast magazines like Wired, Details, Epicurious, Glamour, Allure, Golf Digest etc. will be “delivered” to people’s personal HP web printers so that they can presumably read them without having to go to the magazine stand. This is real! You schedule when you want to read the mags and your HP printer starts spitting out the pages. (I’m assuming you have to staple the pages together yourself)

I guess this could work in a bizarro world where there is no such thing as tablets or laptops or computers or smartphones or the Internet or common sense but we’re not living in that world! Instead, we live in an era where people are ditching their printers cause they’re useless, people who have printers never print anything because printer ink is ass expensive and print media is dying (which is legitimately sad). But still, combining print and more print is the dumbest thing HP’s done this… month, I guess.

But HP is serious about this. And since they want to revive the printer as some sort of news hub, they’re offering a subscription service for printer ink delivery. It’s like Netflix but for printer ink! Subscriptions for HP Instant Ink will start from $5.99 to $10.99 per month depending on the product line (shipping included). This will not end well. [HP, Image Credit: photographer2222/Shutterstock]


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://blog.compete.com/2011/06/30/summer-cinema-smash-or-site-traffic-stinker/

movie theatre marquee

36 years ago, Stephen Spielberg released Jaws during a traditionally quiet time of the year for the box office. It took in seven million dollars that opening weekend, and became the highest grossing film of all time until Star Wars debuted two years later. What followed was a new era of Hollywood, a period in which the summer quarter would account for 40 percent of the entire year’s box office earnings.

It also began the era of extreme (read: shameless) Hollywood marketing. On May 6, 2011 Thor was released, grossing 65 million dollars in its first weekend, and going on to earn more than 430 million dollars worldwide. We’re now deep into the summer blockbuster season.

So it got me wondering: are major studios using their mega movies to drive traffic to their websites?

uvs to major movie studios

Over the last two years, it looks like they’ve rarely gotten more than a million unique visitors in a month, with one glaring exception: Warner Brothers, which consistently gets over 2 million UVs a month. Half-Blood Prince was the second highest grossing film of 2009 behind movie mammoth Avatar, and Sherlock Holmes was at number 8. Because these films were driving WB’s traffic up so much, why weren’t other studios benefiting from their movies’ hype? Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, but it did nothing for Fox’s UVs in December 2009. I realized that unlike WB, other studios don’t host their movies on subdomains—they set up new sites specifically for each movie.

So how do these sites stack up? Here are five of the six top grossing movies domestically this year. Each has a significant spike in daily reach right around their release date.

daily reach for summer movie sites

After just a few days, though, the sites become almost obsolete. Even The Hangover Part II, WB’s subdomain, falls to almost nothing. So then what is it keeping Warner Bros. at the top of the internet game? If it’s not blockbusters bringing in hundreds of millions, what is it?

uvs to warner brothers sites

Ellen DeGeneres’ show seems to drive about half of Warner Bros’ traffic.

I guess daytime TV is a blockbuster, too.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://blog.compete.com/2011/06/30/summer-cinema-smash-or-site-traffic-stinker/

movie theatre marquee

36 years ago, Stephen Spielberg released Jaws during a traditionally quiet time of the year for the box office. It took in seven million dollars that opening weekend, and became the highest grossing film of all time until Star Wars debuted two years later. What followed was a new era of Hollywood, a period in which the summer quarter would account for 40 percent of the entire year’s box office earnings.

It also began the era of extreme (read: shameless) Hollywood marketing. On May 6, 2011 Thor was released, grossing 65 million dollars in its first weekend, and going on to earn more than 430 million dollars worldwide. We’re now deep into the summer blockbuster season.

So it got me wondering: are major studios using their mega movies to drive traffic to their websites?

uvs to major movie studios

Over the last two years, it looks like they’ve rarely gotten more than a million unique visitors in a month, with one glaring exception: Warner Brothers, which consistently gets over 2 million UVs a month. Half-Blood Prince was the second highest grossing film of 2009 behind movie mammoth Avatar, and Sherlock Holmes was at number 8. Because these films were driving WB’s traffic up so much, why weren’t other studios benefiting from their movies’ hype? Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, but it did nothing for Fox’s UVs in December 2009. I realized that unlike WB, other studios don’t host their movies on subdomains—they set up new sites specifically for each movie.

So how do these sites stack up? Here are five of the six top grossing movies domestically this year. Each has a significant spike in daily reach right around their release date.

daily reach for summer movie sites

After just a few days, though, the sites become almost obsolete. Even The Hangover Part II, WB’s subdomain, falls to almost nothing. So then what is it keeping Warner Bros. at the top of the internet game? If it’s not blockbusters bringing in hundreds of millions, what is it?

uvs to warner brothers sites

Ellen DeGeneres’ show seems to drive about half of Warner Bros’ traffic.

I guess daytime TV is a blockbuster, too.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/21/self-published-kindle-author-breaks-one-million-in-sales-legs-m/

Our big, bad digital era’s been caught red-handed overturning media industry business models before, so it comes as no surprise that publishing houses have a new headache on-hand. Straight outta sunny Seattle comes word that Amazon has welcomed its first self-published author to the “Kindle Million Club.” John Locke (so this is where he wound up after going to that quasi-’heaven’) is the lucky dude who gets to claim the prize, and that’s not all — Mr. independent-author-from-Kentucky now shares bold-face status with the likes of Stieg Larsson and Nora Roberts. By churning out action / adventure novels on the $0.99 cheap and making heavy use of some leggy lady models, Locke easily blew past the one million mark, and even has a book to tell you how he did it. Take that evil publishing overlords. Hit the break for Amazon’s official PR spiel.

Continue reading Self-published Kindle author breaks one million in sales, legs might have something to do with it

Self-published Kindle author breaks one million in sales, legs might have something to do with it originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:46:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink MocoNews  |   | Email this | Comments

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5801695/screw-mtv-youtube-100-makes-music-videos-relevant-again

Screw MTV. YouTube 100 Makes Music Videos Relevant Again.YouTube 100 sheepishly materialized this week. The feature itself is minor, a space in their music section listing the 100 most popular music vids. But for the future of the music video, the implications are HUGE. In the best possible way.

YouTube 100 not only lists the Top 100 vids, but lets you play them back to back automatically. (Roku and AppleTV need to get this on their boxes). YouTube 100 returns us to an era when finding and watching music videos isn’t an arbitrary, single-serve experience. It makes watching vids less about personal discovery and more about the shared experience. And it’s as populist as the MTV of yore: our clicks determine what hits the top of the list. It will make music videos relevant again, which they haven’t been for quite some time.

When MTV cancelled TRL and decided they only wanted to show every form of reality TV under the sun, the music video basically died. I mean, specimens still existed (YouTube was coming into its own), but the music video universe had turned into a wasteland of cheaply made abominations that depended on viral distribution for views.

Gone were the days of Diddy’s 10 minute, multi-million dollar epics, which featured big name actors and entire scenes that had little—if nothing—to do with the song. Gone was the video premiere as an event. Some artist (or if they were lucky, PR flak) would just upload a video to a YouTube unceremoniously. Gone was the focused, steady stream of music videos force-fed to us in 30 and 60 minute blocks. Instead, we watched what someone emailed to us, then went back to staring at animated GIFs. Also gone were the video countdowns—there’s something to be said for coming to your own conclusions, but filters and lists always make things more interesting, amiright?

But then something happened. Musicians and labels learned how to market music on the internet (even if they still have no idea how to make money off of said marketing). They learned that a music video gone viral could be a crucial turning point for an artist. They learned how to make the music video an event again (have you SEEN Kanye’s Runaway?!). And when this happened, videos started getting the time and money and care they needed to flourish on the internet. Many of the recent videos from the likes Beyonce, Lady Gaga and Kanye West have had TV-quality production values, but largely found their viewership online.

The problem has been that there’s been no single, communal space where these videos are curated and discussed. MTV has had its MTV Hive site for a while now, but they’ve kept it far too obscure and feature-lacking to really connect with the masses. Vimeo, despite having a treasure trove of amazing content, is too niche in its scope to find a mainstream audience. And YouTube on its own is too chaotic to facilitate a sense of community.

But now that they’ve added the YouTube 100, we have a starting place. Something to talk about. Something to disagree with. It’s a reason to care about music videos again. You know, just as long as VEVO doesn’t ruin it all with those crappy, borderline intrusive ads.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,