GetAmbITion

Get AmbITion! Communicate, collaborate, create and celebrate getting digital in the arts.

  1. Traverse Theatre simultaneously broadcasts live rehearsed readings

    In a great Edinburgh Fringe Festival experiment on 23.08.10, a compendium of new plays, realised as rehearsed readings, were simultaneously transmitted to UK Picturehouse film theatres, including Edinburgh’s Cameo. Despite over-demand for tickets to the live show at the Traverse, Traverse Live! remained a one-off live performance for a small audience, but the show increased its scale, reach impact and accessibility through simultaneous broadcast.

    Cameras setting up

    As part of the small audience in the theatre, there was palapable excitement as we were directed to our seats, being warned by the camera operators from Hibrow Productions dressed in black not to trip over their kit and the wires! On stage, 1 camera was on a tripod with wheels, 2 were on static tripods, 1 camera was hand-held but could be rested on a tripod which was positioned in a row of audience seating. Another roving camera was in the wings and moved up to the projection box to provide aerial and wide context shots.

    As the theatre is a small black box, we were obviously going to be very aware of the camera operators’ presence, but they were all linked in to a floor manager/director communicating with them and the broadcasters by headphones. In fact, once the action began, they didn’t distract from the action, although I was intrigued by seeing the close-up shots of the actors in the view-finder of the camera operator nearest me.

    Dominic Hill introduces the evening

    Dominic Hill, the Artistic Director of The Traverse welcomed us and explained that there would be breaks in the running order as at our end the stage and cameras were reset for the next play, and as the cinema audiences were shown previously recorded interviews and rehearsal videos (this considered more interesting than making them watch the changeover!). He also explaned that the camera crew would be moving around us, so we knew to expect that they might come and sit next to us, or shove an elbow in our faces as they searched for a better shot! Dominic also then did another introduction direct to camera for the cinema audience, so that they also knew exactly what to expect. He set the context, and gave us an idea of what the experience was going to be like so that we all felt comfortable.

    There was usually about five minutes between the plays. In the theatre, we chatted whilst the VT played (video tape – a now somewhat out of date reference to pre-recorded material) and the floor manager shouted countdowns, to warn actors, stage crew, camera crew, and us audience of when we’d be going live again. It felt like Brechtian theatre – we were being shown all the mechanics, but also I felt like an engaged participant, a part of the show: as audience members in the same space, we were on camera as shots panned round to capture our reactions. We had a unique experience, but then so did audience members in the 30 cinemas around the country: the experience was distributed and increased audience numbers for the work at least 20-fold [Traverse to confirm exact numbers].

    Actors were mic-ed up for the broadcast, but there was no amplified feedback in the auditorium (not needed). Apparently one mic failed in one of the plays, but the live audience didn’t notice this. The beginning of the broadcast had to be restarted due to some technical failure, but again, this was clearly communicated by the floor manager, we were “re-set”, and off we went again. Friends of mine who were at Edinburgh’s Cameo Cinema watching said this did not matter. Obviously the audience at Edinburgh’s Cameo Cinema was fairly small due to the majority of us being at the live show, but there were Traverse Theatre marketing staff present, receiving phone calls reporting that “Brixton was full!” and “I can’t believe I’m watching a Traverse fringe show in Malvern”! This is the important significance of distributed, live theatre. Audiences who would never have otherwise seen the work saw it at locations convenient to them; and at an acceptable price point. The work did not have massively high production values – it was a rehearsed reading, so more about giving new work air and audience time.

    For cinema audience members that I talked to directly, the format of rehearsed readings worked and translated well on the big screen – they’re minimally staged and blocked and so work with the close-up demands of a camera. This cinema audience member commented on Andrew Dixon’s Guardian review of the show:

    “I saw the show from a local cinema last night and really enjoyed it. Yes, there were technical glitches, some a bit irritating – the first piece was marred by one character’s voice being mic’d so low – but mostly I thought it added to the raw energy of the evening. Some really good performances from the cast. A very different experience from the live performances screened from the National Theatre which were very polished. But then this is the Traverse, not the NT. They’re not the same thing at all. I hope this is the start of many more such performances. On a purely mercenary note, I’m very happy to exchange the 90+ minute drive to the NT and a high ticket price for a 20 minute drive to the cinema and a seat that costs under £10. It won’t replace theatre but it’s not TV either. Well done, Traverse.”

    And so to the techie bit – how did the Traverse and Hibrow Productions do it?
    Simultaneous broadcast is not the same as simulcast. (Simulcast uses military-strength satellite broadband to transmit shows to cinemas internationally.) Simultaneous broadcast is the transmission of a live broadcast using the live broadcast spectrum and network, via satellite. It does not transmit internationally (different segment of the broadcast spectrum are used for different purposes in other countries, so may not be on the same frequency) and special kit is required: receiving cinemas needed receiver dishes and decoders. (Sky Sports for example distribute live UK football matches to anywhere in the UK with a Sky receiver dish and decoder.)

    In the theatre, a live vision mixing editor worked with a computer loaded with editing software, all the prerecorded material, a sound feed, and feeds from the five cameras. The editor generated a live mix (this had been rehearsed), which was then sent from the computer as a single stream to be broadcast.

    Inside the OB van

    An outside broadcast van sat on the street outside the Traverse’s main doors, receiving the high definition live mix from the theatre, and sending it out to the live broadcast spectrum and network of receivers and transmitters via satellite. Fibre optic cable and a back-up copper cable carried the signal, and ran directly from the theatre to the OB van (we traced it running down the stairs and through the foyer!).

    OB van outside the Traverse

    Sir Richard Eyre says in the Hibrow Productions cinema trailer – “its not film, its not cinema – its something new and unique”. I completely agree, and for theatre audiences to be increased in number, diversity and demographic, this distributed live experience is an essential part of the mix.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    filter
    box
  2. It pays to count: freemium and tracking impact

    So it seems that social media is coming of age: the ning platform (AmbITion Scotland’s network is run on it) has announced that they are changing from their freemium business model, and ning will now have to be paid for. Read The Guardian‘s report. Facebook have said that they’re thinking of moving to the freemium business model, and beginning to charge some users. What is the freemium model, and why and when is it considered suitable?

    The term freemium is coined using two powerful words ‘Free’ and ‘Premium’. The freemium model is easy to understand. Freemium is giving away a quality product for free in order to sell complimentary products to a small percentage. Some basic, entry level of a digital service is available free, and this encourages people to join-up fast and en masse, and guarantees that the platform doesn’t become obscure (anyone heard of Facebook? Just 400m users at the last count…). However, about 10% of the user base will become superusers of the platform, strongly manipulating its services and utilities, highly valuing its content and usability highly. The users are the premium users, and will buy a premium service if its offered, once the value of the free service has become established in their minds and lifestyles. So the freemium business model is this mix of free and premium services for different audiences. It takes time before you can implement freemium, because the offer needs to be valuable in people’s minds, but freemium essentially generates revenue because of the freely distributed content. How? Because large numbers of eyeballs on free content is usually ad supported.

    Freemium hasn’t worked for ning. Why? The advertising revenue stream they’re showing the eyeballs (that’s network memners – like you and I) is targetted Google ads. Ning is essentially the middleware for Google to advertise on behalf of their clients to targetted networks. Ning makes the middleperson’s share of the revenue. Facebook on the other hand is the ad server – owning the advertising channel and charging the clients, and owning the customers too. Freemium will work very well for them, I suspect, and can work well for cultural organisations too – if enough consideration is given to what actually is premium, and if enough sensitivity and targetting is applied to the ad revenue strategy around the free content.

    What I suspect will happen with ning is that organisations who have networks that they value (and we value our AmbITion network) will pay to continue using the platform, and other networks that don’t see many members or updates will shut down and move to another platform that remains free. Its a good reminder that no free online service is guaranteed to remain free, or even to survive. Its possible that in the long term, at least 90% might disappear. So back-up member data and content in other places. This applies to data that you place in free cloud computing services – it needs to be backed up elsewhere.

    So with less free services around, we may see some networks needing to consolidate, challenging organisations with the need to think about whose network might enhance/benefit their, creating a stronger sum of their individual parts. In fact digital consolidation across the cultural and heritage sector is something that I think we’ll see more widely as funds for digital become scarcer.

    Apparently, the Heritage Lottery Fund are currently out to consultation to find out whether they should continue investing funds into digitisation and digital availability of resources – the kind that can be found on any heritage organisation’s website. I think yes of course they should: it increases the reach, scale, access and impact of their work. It helps them sustain their work. But presumably, HLF are finding the investment hard to justify. This might be because they don’t measure the impact of digital, and therefore can’t see a clear return on their investment. Or it might be that they don’t require benificiaries of their funds for digital to measure useful impacts and report them back.

    Historically, our venues have been requested by funders to post annual footfall numbers, and the digital version of this has been website hits, or unique visitor numbers. However, we all know that setting foot inside a cultural venue does not necessarily mean we’ll be having a cultural activity. We might just be wanting a cuppa – or the loo, for that matter! Likewise, levels of hits or unique visitors doesn’t give us a useful insight into whether or not our customers are participating and engaging at a deeper level with culture. If you want to know what to track to guage how your customers are engaging with you through digital channels, watch this AmbITion Scotland Masterclass on Tracking Impact.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    filter
    box
  3. Wikinomics at work: collaborative policies, economics and projects

    {Article originally posted to AmbITion Extranet by Hannah Rudman}

    Virtual collaboration tools, and their strength to make a difference to politics, economics and projects by enhancing knowledge transfer and innovation, are in the news.

    Collaborative politics

    Yesterday, The Observer reported Barack Obama’s internet strategy as being key to his winning of the election: I reported his own social network about 18 months ago, and since then, his campaign has used 3.1m “netroots” – people hooked into Obama’s facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube channels, who effectively pump his messages back out to their own networks and discuss them. Obama has given politics back to the people and invited them into a discussion directly with him: the media sit outside that relationship as they can’t control it. Promising a big investment in the US’s broadband infrastructure, and a YouTube broadcast each week, lets hope we’ve finally got a President who will practice 21st century politics.

    Collaborative economics

    Which brings me onto 21st century economics – Google’s quarterly profits have risen 26% over a period of economic meltdown. The Guardian’s Jeff Jarvis reflects on this today saying:
    “Google’s first advantage is being digital. Who wants to be in the business of stuff any more – building cars, printing newspapers, selling CDs, growing food? Owning and controlling stuff was the basis of most business. And the reflexive response to a collapse in finance and equities used to be to return to the real: buy property. No more. Now the best retreat is to the value of knowledge”..

    Google is based on creating an abundance of data about data, and a platform for countless businesses to be created using that information for niche markets. Similarly Facebook is based on sharing data – with friends and family, but also and more importantly, with a wider network of contacts you wouldn’t normally share so much with. Sharing more has led to more connections, more knowledge transfer and more innovation. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook and this weekend interviewed in The Observer Magazine says: “Facebook [is] not such an amazing technological feat – it’s just a group of tools and platforms – an evolution of communication”.

    Collaborative Projects
    Ed Mitchell and Clare Reddington of Watershed’s iShed have just launched a really interesting report called “Which Widget For What?” that explores – through measuring a real and virtual project – the different strengths and weaknesses of virtual and physical working as well as the effectiveness of digital web 2.0 widgets to support the knowledge sharing and innovation. The headlines are that physical meetings work best for encouraging people to share ideas and make connections; blogs work well to follow the development and ongoing analysis of a project (its a narrative form); and tools like MindMeister (online, editable, collaborative mindmapping) work well as virtual collaborative tools, pulling together the wisdom of the crowd after the physical event.

    Collaboration and transparency – wikinomics – are clearly working as 21st C business tools for growth.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    filter
    box
  4. With more than a billion people online worldwide: it’s time for Digital Britain

    {Article originally posted to AmbITion Extranet by Hannah Rudman}

    digitalbritain
    The Economist this week report that the number of people going online has passed one billion for the first time, according to comScore, an online metrics company. Almost 180m internet users—over one in six of the world’s online population—live in China, more than any other country. Until a few months ago America had most web users, but with 163m people online, or over half of its total population, it has reached saturation point. More populous countries such as China, Brazil and India have many more potential users and will eventually overtake those western countries with already high penetration rates. ComScore counts only unique users above the age of 15 and excludes access in internet cafes and via mobile devices.

    If America’s new president has his way, a total of $37 billion will be spent on the digitisation of health records ($20 billion), a smarter power grid ($11 billion) and high-speed internet connections ($6 billion).

    It is not just America that is betting on technology to help revive its economy. Yesterday, the common global theme of “broadband for all” (broadband, the assumption goes, could boost economies in much the same way as railways and highways did in previous eras), was echoed by a British government report called “Digital Britain”. The report details 22 actions. The most relevant to the cultural sector – actions around content production, rights and distribution – are taken from the actions summary within the DCMS’s press release today:

    DIGITAL CONTENT

    In relation to the Economics of Digital Content:

    ACTION 10 - DETAILED ANALYSIS
    In the final report we will examine measures needed to address the challenges for digital content in more detail, including opportunities for providing further support to foster UK creative ambition and alternative funding mechanisms to advertising revenues.

    In relation to Rights and Distribution:

    ACTION 11 - INITIAL ASSESSMENT
    By the time the final Digital Britain Report is published the Government will have explored with interested parties the potential for a Rights Agency to bring industry together to agree how to provide incentives for legal use of copyright material; work together to prevent unlawful use by consumers which infringes civil copyright law; and enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators. The Government also welcomes other suggestions on how these objectives should be achieved.

    ACTION 12 - INITIAL ASSESSMENT

    Before the final Digital Britain Report is published we will explore with both distributors and rights-holders their willingness to fund, through a modest and proportionate contribution, such a new approach to civil enforcement of copyright (within the legal frameworks applying to electronic commerce, copyright, data protection and privacy) to facilitate and co-ordinate an industry response to this challenge. It will be important to ensure that this approach covers the need for innovative legitimate services to meet consumer demand, and education and information activity to educate consumers in fair and appropriate uses of copyrighted material as well as enforcement and prevention work.

    ACTION 13 - LEGISLATION / REGULATORY REFORM Our response to the consultation on peer-to-peer file sharing sets out our intention to legislate, requiring ISPs to notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights-holders) that their conduct is unlawful. We also intend to require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from their notification activities), to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order. We intend to consult on this approach shortly, setting out our proposals in detail.

    Comments so far:

    The UK’s two main music organisations have bemoaned Lord Carter’s coy, cumbersome, interim Digital Britain for encouraging them to “sue consumers”. The report doesn’t actually make that recommendation in so many words (see our summary and P2P breakdown), but a vacuum left on enforcing customer warnings is causing concern. And the criticism doesn’t stop there…

    —Feargal Sharkey, CEO, UK Music: “We do not believe that the form of intervention proposed by today’s Report – suing consumers – is the best way forward. Obviously, there is a need for greater dialogue over coming months.”

    —Geoff Taylor, CEO, BPI: (“It’s) a step forward … but what we need is a bold stride. Requiring ISPs by law to inform their customers about illegal activity is … welcome. However, it is hard to see how letter-sending alone will achieve the aim of significantly reducing illegal filesharing which the government has set itself.

    “Consumer research shows that filesharers are only likely to change their behaviour if they know that letters are the first step in a process and further action will be taken by service providers. The Interim Report proposes targeted legal action against the most significant infringers – but few people believe that the answer lies in suing consumers. We believe that proportionate measures taken by ISPs would be more effective.”

    —Trinity Mirror (LSE: TNI) CEO Sly Bailey (via HTFP): “The thud made by the 80-page Interim Report on Digital Britain as it fell on our desks today was matched only by our hearts sinking as we took stock of its content. We are bitterly dispappointed that the report makes only passing reference to newspapers – the word is used just four times – and the crushing lack of understanding of the urgency required for changes to merger regulations in the local and regional media sector.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    filter
    box
  5. Five years of Facebook. How will it last five more?

    From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/feb/04/facebook-socialnetworking

    Can you imagine life without Facebook? Probably. But you can’t deny the phenomenal growth of the site since it was opened beyond US colleges in September 2006. Even in internet years, those five years have proved remarkably successful.

    Facebook overtook MySpace as the UK’s most popular social network in the UK in autumn last year. The comparison between the two is not exactly equal, with MySpace attracting a younger, more music-orientated crowd and with a design that had started to look increasingly cluttered and disorganised next to Facebook’s clinical organisation.

    What Facebook was better at doing was firstly structuring social communication in a more efficient way, but also provided a format that proved more attractive and accessible to a more mainstream audience, hence the rapid ascent of the site.

    Why all the Facebook chatter?

    Its ubiquity among a particular class and demographic explains much of the attention it has had in the media; most of the people in the media are the right age and demographic to use it, rather than MySpace or Bebo. But go to any playground in the UK and those kids will only be talking about Bebo. They think Facebook is stuffy and boring, but it’s no bad thing for Facebook’s economics that it attracts a more lucrative userbase.

    Mark Zuckerberg’s vision of the social graph, or mapping our relationships in digital form, is enticing, but not a vision that Facebook could ever wholly fulfill. Already, the notion of a single destination website that contains the bulk of our social interactions seems outdated. Would Facebook ever relinquish enough control over those social transactions to facilitate communication outside the site? It might have to, if it wants to stay relevant.

    Already the flexibility and openness of Twitter – despite its obvious lack of a business model so far – has shown that handing over control of interaction has huge advantages in building an audience of people that want to use your service in the way that works for them.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    filter
    box
Creative Scotland Lottery Fund Culture Sparks Rudman Consulting Arts Council England