Instagram Threads - Social Media Gets Darker

Instagram has just launched Threads, a camera-first messaging app.  It's a stand-alone app, but uses your Instagram contact list.

Instagram has been moving away from completely open sharing for a while - Stories delete by default after 24 hours, and Close Friends, launched last year, enable you to choose whether to share a post with all followers (e.g. including your auntie), or to a smaller circle of friends. 

Threads is is camera-first, as opposed to WhatsApp, which is text first.  Not surprisingly Snap’s share price dipped on this news. 

It’s another example, with Facebook groups, and local networks like Nextdoor, of how social media is evolving into a less open, less public set of tools. 

A big theme for the year ahead, I think.

Voice and Commerce - Keep it immediate

What if we're getting smart speakers and shopping wrong?

I've read a lot in recent years about the hopes for shopping on smart speakers like Amazon Echo - lots of different attempts to get people to order free samples, to put things into their shopping baskets, and to say phrases to get discounts at checkout.

But what if we've been thinking about it in the wrong way?

Two recent stories from the hospitality industry point in a different direction.

First, Starbucks has done a partnership with Alibaba in China to let people make delivery orders on the smart speakers, integrated with Alibaba's food delivery service.  Basically 'bring me a coffee'

Second, McDonalds has bought a speech tech company, Apprente, which automates voice ordering in multiple lauguages.  They already use this in some drive-ins, to automate the process.  Again, this is essentially 'I want a Big Mac & Fries'.

I think that this is a much more compelling use than 'add to my basket'.

(Thanks for reminding me to keep updating my blog, Scott!)

'Will my kids learn to drive?' 'Will my kids learn to cook?'

I was listening to this podcast this morning - Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz interviewed about the future.

It's a brilliant listen - Andreessen is very smart, and very well-read - at one point citing CP Snow - and ably defending the tech industry, Silicon Valley, and engineering as a way to make our futures better.

At the end the interviewer asked if he thought his kids would learn to drive. Well he though, this six year old probably would, but his two year old.

I completely see why, with his inside knowledge on the development of self-driving cars, he might say this, but I think he's missing some vital points.

First, it will make a big difference whether you live in an urban or rural place. I think driving will be essential in rural areas for a long time to come.

Second, for everyday getting around you may not need a car, but what about for holidays, trips etc. I don't own a car - I live in Zone 2 in London, 3 minutes from a tube station - but I rent a car every year to go on a walking holiday.

Third, it doesn't matter if it's essential, you might just enjoy it. No one needs to learn to cook these days - there is ready to eat food in every shop, takeaway options, delivery and so on. But some people like cooking.

The Plum Guide - Putting a Luxury Layer on Airbnb

A year ago or so I was in an art gallery, and a posh voice behind me said:

"The problem with Airbnb is that you're reliant on someone else's definition of a comfortable bed."

& that's the problem with Airbnb.  As much as I love it, there are often a few 'quirky' things about the places you stay; things that you don't want to write in the comments because it would be churlish, but you would mention to friends who were looking to stay there.

This is essentially the service The Plum Guide performs.  It finds the best of the properties on Airbnb and other rental sites, using 100 criteria to make sure that everything works, everything is clean and so on, and then offers you just these.

Yes, it's more expensive, but you get what you pay for.  Some of the properties look both stunning and interesting - have a look at Hackney for example.

I can imagine a similar 'luxury layer' on other parts of the sharing economy, and other parts of the DIY online experience.  Uber started off as the luxury layer with town cars, and went mass market, but there could be a business curating the best of other services.  For example Groupon was killed by flakey spas etc, who could not be checked by Groupon, but how about a luxury version that only offered the good stuff?  Or a luxury 'ZipCar' car-sharing scheme?

See more about The Plum Guide in this profile

Uber, Deliveroo and physical spaces

Uber, Airbnb, Deliveroo and others started off as marketplaces, connecting people who wanted services to people who could offer them, made possible (essentially) through the smartphone.

(Read Brad Stone's excellent book about Uber and Airbnb)

They operated through technology, in the same way that eBay and Etsy - also marketplaces - do.  No wasteful premises needed, just a simple connection between buyers and sellers.

Two stories last week show how this is changing.

First, it was announced that Deliveroo is opening some kitchen hubs that restaurants can share, so that they could offer delivery in places where they did not have, or could not afford to have, restaurants.

"European food delivery startup Deliveroo has today unveiled a new platform that enables restaurants of all sizes to open in new locations without committing to costly public premises.

With Deliveroo Editions, the London-headquartered company is putting its arsenal of delivery data to use through identifying customer demand and specific cuisine shortages in certain areas — it’s about spotting gaps in the market. Deliveroo then asks eateries, be they small independents or national chains, to sign up to its new kitchen-only delivery platform, though restaurants can also register their interest in being selected.

For restaurants looking to expand, this setup reduces the risk of setting up shop in expensive neighborhoods, with only the actual catering side of things to worry about. Deliveroo provides everything else in terms of infrastructure, including bespoke kitchens, local marketing support, software, and fleets of couriers."

A day or so later it was revealed that Uber is in talks to buy car parks near to airports in the UK, so that drivers have a space where they can wait (legally) for fares to request them.

"Uber is setting up dedicated car parking areas for its drivers close to Gatwick and City airports in London, steering away from rows with locals.

It's understood the ride-sharing startup will most likely lease space near the airports to offer drivers a location to wait for pick ups.

Uber drivers and other minicab drivers at Heathrow were last year provided with a waiting area with space for up to 800 cars in order to reduce congestion in surrounding areas."

I think this is the latest part of the 'online to offline' trend that we've seen over the past few years, including companies that started as pure tech companies, like Amazon, Google, Snapchat and others, producing physical devices, and opening up retail spaces.

I'm sure that one of the reasons Groupon lost its value and reputation was that it relied almost entirely on third parties for the experiences (it was impossible to vet all the fish pedicure places and day spas), and it makes sense for people to have far more control over the experience people have of their brand.
How long before Airbnb opens its own boutique hotel?

NYT's VR & 360° Film for Lincoln in the Bardo

The NYT continues to innovate in VR and 360° video.

This example is a 10 minute film produced for the new novel Lincoln in the Bardo by George Saunders - which is getting lots of buzz, and is likely, I think, to pick up lots of awards and be a bestseller across the world.



What's also interesting is that this shows (in a way) where we are with VR.  It's being used for interesting projects, but this is something that is actually a play for voices with a few added effects.

Yes, there are lots of VR games and the PlayStation VR has done well at 1m units of so sold since the end of last year, but it's not mainstream or massively popular - yet.  We haven't yet had a Pokemon GO, a Chewbacca Mask Woman, or a 'Skype Interview Kids' moment for VR.

Also, a quick comment about this blog.  I'm conscious that I've been updating less than I used to, and I'm also conscious that the original purpose of this blog - to find interesting digital marketing examples - has pretty much disappeared.  I'm thinking of a couple of new directions for it; one, to look at media share price charts, and offer commentary on them (which I don't thing anyone else is doing), and two, to write about interesting new companies that I've come across.  Maybe I should try alternating both.

Uber Surge Pricing and the 'Low Battery' Urban Myth

I love tracking urban myths.  When I was a school I did a history project about myths in wartime (Germans eat babies, etc) and I love finding new ones.  The main thing is that they are stories that people at the time want to believe.  There's quite a lot of academic literature about urban myths because they tell us a lot about current fears and concerns ('I did a favour for a middle eastern man and he told me to stay out of London this Friday').

Here's one in the making.

A few months ago Uber revealed that their app can see the user's battery level, and as a result they could see some interesting data.  For example, they could see that if someone was on less than 15% battery, they were more likley to request a car even if it was surge pricing, the point being that they had to get home - their phone might have died. by the time prices fell.

This has since turned into a myth that 'if you have a low battery Uber will give you surge pricing' (essentially turning the story on its head).  Yes, they could theoretically do it, but they've never said that they do it.  What this arguably says about Uber is that people see them as smart, but devious.

I'm looking forward to tracking this over the next few years.

Snapchat's Spectacles, and the move to Hardware

Snapchat has announced that they are releasing a video camera, called 'Spectacles', and shaped like...  you guessed it.

I think it's a great move, and very much in keeping with Snapchat as a fun brand.  You can imagine them being a bit hit at a party, a wedding, on holiday or whatever.  They record 10 or 30 second video clips which can then be shared to a phone via Bluetooth and then uploaded, so it sounds like they're shareable - i.e. you could buy a couple of pairs for people to muck about with (at $130 a pair).

It reminds me a bit of the Flip video camera - it's a fun, single use device that is 'good enough' to be fun, rather than a high spec product.  Let's see how these sell.

It also raises the question of what hardware would other software companies produce?

Amazon made the Kindle, and then moved on to the Kindle Fire tablet, the Fire Stick, and now the Echo and Dash buttons, which are ultimately all about making shopping easier.

Google has now made phones, and maybe most interestingly, the Chromecast, which is all about accessing content, or sharing content.  Oh, and their car.

What would Facebook make?  (The Facebook phone has often been rumoured)

What would Instagram make?

What would Twitter make?

How about WhatsApp?

What about Slack?

Pinterest?

Spotify?

Some thoughts on Live Video

Last weekend Candace Payne's 'Chewbacca Mask' video acheived over 100mm views on Facebook.

It's the first Facebook Live video to do this - but very few will have seen it 'live'

'Live' refers to the way it was uploaded - no editing, no enhancement.  Live is now the simplest way to upload video to Facebook (& YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat etc) - just open the app and shoot away.

The speed is extraordinary.  It his 100m in about 48 hours, I think.  By comparison Adele's Hello hit 23m views in 24 hours, and Psy's Gentleman (the follow up to Gangnam Style) took 4 days to reach 100m views in 2013, at that time the fastest ever video to 100m.

I suspect that Facebook put quite a lot of muscle behind this once they realised that it was so viral, and did a lot to help it get to 100m, including PR and more.

I also think it shows that Facebook is now the best place for a certain sort of video, better than YouTube, because it can reach so many people so quickly.

I think it also opens up lots of creative opportunities for using live video that is actually 'live' - think about what sort of times everyone will be looking at Facebook at the same time.  How about (in England) right after England's first Euro 2016 game?  Lots of people will go to Facebook to discuss the result (or look for distraction) and it would be a great place to respond immediately to what has just happened.

Louis CK's Horace & Pete

One of the things that really winds me up is the lack of decent original content on YouTube.  Yes, there are the vloggers, but as far as I can see they're the new Kids' TV.  I don't know anyone who watches them, apart from young kids.  While they get lots of views, and as a result lots of press coverage, they're only influential to a small group of people - kids.  Some of the people who are currently vloggers will go on to do other things when they're older - kids TV examples include Richard Bacon, Ant and Dec, and even Jeremy Irons - but I suspect many won't.

I quite often hear people at YouTube talking about all the great content, but they can never recommend anything that I'd want to watch.  If I watch something longer than 5 minutes on YouTube it's probably an old documentary, for example one of Adam Curtis' early ones that some public spirited soul has uploaded.

By contrast, I'm spoilt for choice with great podcasts - Marc Maron's WTF, The Nerdist, Adam Buxton, ReplyAll, Scroobius Pip's Distraction Pieces, RHLSTP, Tech Tent, Talking TV...  There's so much great stuff out there.  It's easier to do audio only at a budget.  These podcasts are usually enthusiasts talking to each other, which works fine in audio, and don't need much in the way of production.  They also don't compete with my TV viewing - Night Manager, Line of Duty etc - because I listen when I'm cooking, when I'm on the train etc.

It's now looking like there might be more independent video aimed at an older age group.  Since January, Louis CK has been filming and releasing episodes of his new show Horace & Pete on his site.  It's a sitcom set in a bar, but more inspired by Abigail's Party than Cheers, and stars Louis and Steve Buscemi as the eponymous characters.

Apparently it cost $500,000 per episode to make, and it's being sold for $5 an episode on Louis's site, or $31 for all ten episodes. (remember that he pioneered the direct sale of his own stand-up film 5 years ago).  It was 'dropped' an episode at a time from the start of the year, via an email to site subscribers.  It's also likely to be on Netflix or HBO at some point - Louis has the rights to licence it to other people.

It's not a very replicable example - Louis is a big star - but it's interesting to see him making stuff for online release, like Jerry Seinfeld does - with sponsorship - with Comedians in Cars.  Maybe if the audiences and advertising grows, and the costs of production come down, lots of my favourite podcasts could become web series, or develop new formats more suited to being watched rather than being listened to.

In the meantime, please tell me what great original content I should be watching on YouTube!

Chat Bots are Coming

Image source:  http://demo.vhost.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=b0dafd24ee35a477

Messaging apps are becoming more and more popular.  WhatsApp has over 1 billion users, Facebook Messenger 900m, and WeChat 700m, and there are also lots of smaller ones like Kik and Line.

I've long felt that companies should offer Messenger platforms for customer services, but the issue is always one of providing support quickly without getting overwhelmed by millions of people wanting to get in touch.

Earlier this month Facebook announced that it was introducing an API for people to develop automated chatbots - effectively a way of answering questions automatically.

This is a good solution in principle - it allows companies to offer another access point, and gives them a platform more flexible (in some ways) than sms or email as it can be quicker, and can include clickable links, 'cards' and links to other apps, like maps.  It also means that people wouldn't have to download a new app for each company they want to deal with, but just add the company as a contact on messenger, which is much easier.

I expect that early bots will be essentially a new search interface.  Take the example of retailer John Lewis.  I'd expect that a lot of the search queries are for closed questions to find the address or opening times.  ('When does John Lewis close tonight?', "does John Lewis stock Chanel'  etc).  A bot could take 1,000 of the most popular search queries and for each use natural language AI to try to work out when this question (or similar) is being asked.

You can also see that, for a lot of closed questions like 'When does John Lewis close tonight?' you only need one search results, not pages and pages of them.  Just as 'search' isn't great for vague, open questions like 'What's the best thing to do in London tonight?', it's not that great for questions with one correct answer.

I can also see apps being replaced by bots. Again, imagine a cooking bot, a cocktail bot, or even a city guide bot.  Again you would use questions to select what you wanted 'A cocktail using Gin and Orange Juice', 'Things to do tonight' etc - which is essentially what apps like Mixology and YPlan do.

But I also think that chatbots could turn out to be an absolute nightmare.  In the past month I've had problems (mostly minor) with DVLC, Ryanair, BT, Lambeth Housing and more, and in each case it's been almost impossible to get hold of an actual person who could answer a question, instead I was directed to forums, sent emails from accounts that you couldn't reply to, asked to press numbers on my phone keyboard and so on.

I fear that bots may make this even worse, and will lead to a whole new level of 'computer says no' pain.  It also makes me remember the pain of dealing with (some) grown-ups when I was a child:

- What would you like to drink Daniel?
- I'd like a glass of water please
- Water?  I've never heard of a little boy drinking water before.  Who ever heard of such a thing! I've got some Coca Cola - would you like that?
etc...

But let's be positive.  I think that the potential is huge, and it's being done successfully (apparently) in China, where some cities are connected via WeChat - you use messenger to arrange medical appointments and so on.

Gaming the Instagram algorithm

A photo posted by Bill Klingensmith (@mydarndest) on Mar 28, 2016 at 6:44am PDT

Instagram is going to start using an algorithm to try to show users the posts they are most likely to appreciate, rather than just use a chronological timeline as it has until now.

The chronological timeline is simple and easy to understand, but it has drawbacks - if I don't look at Instagram within an hour (or a few minutes) of one of my friends' updates I'm unlikely to see it.  An algorithmic timeline could be better - this is what Facebook uses, and it puts important news like engagements, and new babies at the top of my newsfeed.

As services like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook get bigger people follow more users, so there is more to see, but also more clutter.

The drawback of an algorithm is that can make some posts invisible - essentially if Instagram thinks that I'm not likely to like a person's post, it's likely to bury it.  It's a black box in that it's not clear how the algorithm is worked out.

(I remember a story of someone getting so fed up that their posts about the unrest in Ferguson weren't getting seen on Facebook that she changed her status to 'married' so that it would appear in friends' feeds)

Some Instagram users are getting panicked that their friends won't see their posts and have been asking friends to turn on notifications so that friends will get an alert every time they post.  This clearly isn't workable - imagine if you turned this on for 20 people - but it shows that people will try to game the new algorithm, just as they've been trying to game the current system by using lots of hashtags, tagging lots of friends in their pictures, even when they're not there, and messaging friends to ask them to like pictures.  In my experience the most popular accounts, beyond the celebrity ones, are ones that are very specific to a genre - cats, landscapes, desserts - you get the idea.

What I suspect will happen once we have the new algorithm is that 'the rich will get richer' - if you currently have a lot of followers and get a lot of likes, you will start to get even more.  Instagram is doing this both to make it a better experience for users, but also to make the platform a more engaging place for casual users, so it will show you more of what you have already said you like.  This way you will return more often.

(Instagram already uses algorithms of course, in the 'search' tab, to show you popular pictures like the ones on the sites you already follow, and in recommending new accounts for you to follow, based on who your friends follow and sites that are similar to the ones you follow or have visited).

So what is likely to be included in the Instagram algorithm, to choose what pictures to show you?

The strength of connection to the account, including on Facebook - so you'll get to see more pictures from people you know, and even more from people you know well.

The frequency of linking pictures - if you often like Nigella Lawson's pictures you'll be shown all the news ones

The frequency of liking a type of picture - if you like pictures with the hashtag #dessert you'll be shown more #dessert pictures from accounts that you follow

The location - if you've posted a picture somewhere, you'll probably be shown friends' pictures from the same area.

The frequency of posting - Instagram will want to reward the people who put the work in - and besides their pictures are likely to be better.

At the same time I think it's likely that Instagram will start to penalise the spam tactics that people currently use to game it that I mentioned above - too many hashtags, too many users tagged - in the way that Facebook did in penalising the brand posts asking questions ("It's Friday - what's everyone  doing tonight?) and other ways of fishing for interaction.

Instagram has always been gamed to a degree, and now that there's a 'black box' algorithm the gaming will increase - companies will offer to make brands' instagram pictures more popular - but essentially if you post good pictures, often, then you should be fine.

BBC3 & The Independent - 2 Unwilling Experiments

Both BBC3 and The Independent are going online only, ceasing digital broadcast and newsprint publication respectively, as money-saving initiatives they have both been forced into.

From a personal point of view, neither are major parts of my media consumption.  I've seen a few things on BBC3 - The Professor Green programme on suicide was very good - and I've read a few articles in the Independent because I follow them on Twitter and click on links.  (I was a pretty loyal reader in the early days, but one by one the good writers got lured away, and it suffered horribly from a lack of investment).

It's going to be interesting to see how both fare.  The fact that my experience of the Indie is via Twitter & Facebook points towards how I'm still going to see the output of both.  I never see a paper copy of the New York Times but I must read about 4-5 stories a month because they're shared by people or entities that I follow.  Likewise Netflix isn't broadcast, but you couldn't escape people talking about Making a Murderer about a month ago.  Also, podcasts.

(I must point out that both the NYT and Netflix are successfully getting people to pay subscriptions)

The best case scenario for both I think is...

BBC3's new shows are well made, and the people in them share the links via social media.  BBC3 uses a lot of talent who have big followings, and could be encouraged to share as part of their contracts.  I've always felt that the people who moaned about BBC3 being online only didn't really know how young people find and watch content (I'd love to see some of the iPlayer stats for example).  The BBC is going to increase the marketing spend for the channel, apparently, which is kind of the wrong way round, but let's see how it works.

Similarly the Independent needs to get its feature writers to actively share, and also needs to commission work from people with strong followings.  This could lead them down the 'Youth Hostelling with Chris Eubank' school of commissioning (hope not) but it could also find some new voices.  The Guardian always gets lots of readers (I think) for articles written by Russell Brand for example.  The most important thing is the features - too many news organisations will cover the news the the same way, so they can compete best with features.  Again the key is the sharing.

So I can see both working well, but then I'm a natural optimist.  If they do work well, I can see other newspapers especially following the digital-only route.

The worst case scenario...  Well, both fail.  Let's hope it doesn't get to that.

Twitter Trends

Today #KanyeAnalPlaylist was trending on Twitter.  This helps to explain why

This sums up for me what is simultaneously the best and worst thing about Twitter.

The best - it's funny, irreverent, unpredictable, and gives me things I can't find anywhere else

The Worst - I can think of lots of people who wouldn't find this funny, and would see it as conforming for them that Twitter isn't a site for them, and isn't a site they need to take seriously.

It often amuses me that Facebook's trends are what was trending on Twitter 24 hours earlier - Amber Rose is trending now, but her tweet was from 2 days ago - but maybe they're moderated and I'mpretty sure they're less prone to attacks of the crazies like this.

With twitter's share price looking like a ski slope, I hope that it can stay as irreverent and funny as ever, but be successful as a business.

(But to be fair, Twitter has turned the trend into a Moment)

10 Trends for 2016

Carat's 10 Trends for 2016 from Carat Global

Carat Global has been producing trend reports for over 5 years, looking at new technologies that will become more important and relevant to clients.

The trends for 2016 are all growing in importance, and will all have implications for clients.

This year’s trends involve two big themes:

The rise of closed, competing ecosystems

The development of artificial intelligence and actionable measurement

I hope that you find the presentation useful and informative!

Ad blockers & explaining politely

Here is some interesting research from Nieman Lab - They asked a number of publishers about their experience with ad blocking on mobile and desktop, including two who are currently blocking content to people using ad blockers.

City AM, the UK free business newspaper, blocks content to anyone arriving on Firefox who uses an ad blocker.  As you can see from the screengrab, they explain politely and clearly why they are doing it:

"We are having trouble showing you adverts on this page, which may be a result of ad blocker software being installed on your device.

As City A.M. relies on advertising to fund its journalism, please disable any ad blockers from running on cityam.com, then reload the page to see the rest of this content. More info here."

According to Nieman Lab:

"In the first month or so since City A.M. began showing users the message, the percentage of readers using adblockers on Firefox has dropped by a third, Ashplant said. And about one-quarter of users who see the adblocking message actually turn it off or whitelist.

City A.M. also hasn’t seen a noticeable change in its bounce rate because of the new message, Ashplant said. He reads that to mean that people who decide not to turn off their adblockers likely wouldn’t have stayed on the site beyond reading that one article.

“It almost feels like the people who feel that it’s worth having that value exchange, and it’s worth turning the adblocker off — because they do want to see the content and they do perceive that City A.M. has got content that’s worth turning the adblocker off for — they’re inclined to spend longer on the site,” he explained. “It’s almost as if they’ve made a conscious decision that it’s worth doing it, and then they go on to explore the site and click on more than one page.”"

It seems to me that if you have good, distinctive content, and an educated and considerate readership this is a good step to take.

Be very clear about why you're doing it, and be polite, but firm.

I hear a lot about how people understand the value exchange in free content that is paid by ads (you look at the ads to get the free content), but in music for example there was a very long established and explicit value exchange (you pay money to buy a recording) that eroded very quickly.

Hunted

Channel 4's reality show Hunted ends this week.  The point of the show, filmed in the summer, is to highlight the power of the surveillance society by challenging people go on the run for 28 days without being tracked down.



I've always been a big fan of 'on the run' books, like The Thirty Nine Steps, Rogue Male, and Ordinary Thunderstorms, and I really enjoyed this show too.  It's been fascinating to see what your digital footprint can say about you, for example:

The authorities (represented by the team of hunters in the show) can track cars on motorways through number plate recognition - but not, generally speaking, on other roads

A phone call gives your location away - and the contents of rext messages can be read too (in one case they tapped the phones of fugitives friends - I'd love to see the contracts that the contestants signed)

You can see lots from discarded devices - one thing the hunters do is searh the homes of the fugitives.  Any devices are taken and then hacked into, so that they can read messages and so on, and even clone devices once they know someone's number, so that they can can follow what is happening on the handset's accounts and apps in real time

Search history on sites like Trip Advisor can be deduced from regular emails - if you've been searching for information on Wales, TA will send you lots of Welsh picks in your next newsletter

I think it's going to be interesting to see how a second series works because future fugitives will be wise to these techniques.  My advice would be to use things like Snapchat where the messages are deleted after sending, and obviously to use as many non-digital channels, like writing letters to people, as possible.

It's also unclear how specific the rules are.  Almost all of the hunted have been charging around the country (they can't go abroad) so is this in the rules?  Surely it would be better to pick one very good hiding place (maybe in your own street) and stay there, incommunicado.

Note - not everyone likes it, and it has to be said that given that all the fugitives have a camera operator with them, there are other ways the hunters may be tracking them down.

Update - When it came down to it the final episode was a bit of a disappointment.  None of the 4 still on the run were captured, and they introduced a new element where as well as staying on the run they had to get to a secret rendezvous undetected.

It was interesting to see that when both groups of two met up at the end they knew each other (prosumably Channel 4 had held briefings with all the participants), and that, while the show had implied that they went on the run at different times, if they were ending at the same time they must have all started at the same time.

'Americans Watch Father Ted for the First Time'

Apparently BuzzFeed produces about 75 video clips a week.  It's clearly a bit of a scattergun approach, but it means that they produce things that will resonate with lots of different people in different ways, and also that they understand that with content there is a point of diminishing marginal returns in production cost.

(Diminishing marginal returns is an economics phrase that essentially means that after a certain point the amount by which you enjoy something, or something gets better, starts to decline at a certain point.  My economics teacher at school taught it by telling us to imagine eating chocolate bars - first one great, second one great, 3rd one great, 4th one - good, 5th one - you're starting to get a bit sick of eating chocolate, and so on)

It looks like BuzzFeed made this video pretty cheaply.  3 couples, one laptop, one camera, no script, some clips of the show probably free under 'fair usage' rules, and a bit of editing.  They could have used multiple cameras, a nicer set and so on, but it wouldn't have made it a great deal better.  The idea was great, it was well presented, didn't last too long, and has had over 600,000 views in a couple of days.  They just did it and got it out there.

They can also replicate it very cheaply with Mrs Brown's Boys, Only Fools & Horses, One Foot In The Grave, Phoenix Nights, Dick Emery...  (They've actually done one for Geordie Shore...)  Or show Brits lots of shows that didn't make it over here on a large channel.

(In fact they now have 114 videos called For the First Time including Moms Play Minecraft For The First Time, and Indians Try Baseball For The First Time)

I think BuzzFeed are going to do quite well at this whole viral video thing.

Beats 1 & Exclusive Content

Beats 1, Apple's free streaming radio service, launches tomorrow.  Here's a trailer for it:

And we're just getting started... @Pharrell @jtimberlake @Caradelevingne @officialjaden & @drdre https://t.co/MriT8o0oHB

— Beats 1 (@Beats1) June 27, 2015

This looks pretty good - people having fun in a radio studio, making stuff that you can't find anywhere else, a bit like all the best radio stations do, but this time globally.

The line-up of shows looks imaginative too - Zane Lowe, poached from the BBC, Dr Dre's Pharmacy, and even Elton John's Rocket Hour, a mix of old and new tunes.

It's kind of like the BBC's 6 Music but for a younger, more hip hop audience.  It feels a bit like when new TV stations launched in the 90s - for example British Satellite Broadcasting, which had lots of experimental shows, that pretty much no one could see.

But this time anyone with an iOS device can theoretically listen, so it's going to be really interesting to see how it develops.  Remember that the Beats 1 radio service is the free product to lure people in to subscribe to the streaming service.

I've occasionally wondered why there isn't a successful music version of Netflix - making its own premium content, completely paid for - and I think the reason is that we attach more value to content we watch rather than listen to.

Beats 1 seems to be taking the 'premium, rare content' idea and really pushing it.  Tidal is also doing the same thing, but radio shows seems like a better way to do it than occasional exclusive tracks that will immediately get pirated.

Apple Music - The History of Sound

Apple has produced this lovely ad to promote the launch of Apple Music.

I think the battle between Apple and Spotify (& Google and others) for music streaming will be very interesting.

Apple is striking its own path - no free level, and curated radio, appealing to the more creative and richer end of the market.  I think their idea of curation is very interesting, hiring Zane Lowe and others from the BBC, and letting them make shows and pick music.

Spotify, on the other hand, is all about big data, and trying to use your past choices and the context you're in (time of day, location) to suggest music to you.  Google will I'm sure do similar things when they properly launch their YouTube music offering.