Amy Poehler’s ‘Smart Girls’ – Um, Not So Smart, Amy…

Image via Wikipedia

I think Amy Poehler is awesome. She’s funny, creative and seems like an all-around good person.  When I read that she was developing a web series for young girls I thought it sounded like a fine idea – maybe a bit high-minded but worth rooting for.

Unfortunately, after seeing the first episode, I am pretty troubled.

For starters, the sponsor is Barbie by Mattel – not exactly a great role model for young girls hoping to make a difference in the world.  Making matters even more confusing, the pre-roll ad is a sort of Barbie nostalgia thing aimed squarely at grownups, not young girls.

Once I watched the video I was even more confused.  The whole thing looks like it was filmed on the set of Charlie Rose, with stark black background, round table and Amy, dressed a bit like a flight attendant doing a very talking interview with a cute little girl who writes ghost stories.  And it’s 7 minutes long.

I guess I just don’t get what will appeal to young girls here. Sure, seeing people like yourself in a video is cool but there is nothing here to hold the attention of a ten-year-old.

See for yourself…

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.747886&w=425&h=350&fv=configFileName%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.onnetworks.com%2Fembed_player%2Fvideos%2Fsmart-girls-at-the-party%2Fcameron%3Ftarget%3Dsite]

Related articles by Zemanta

• Amy Poehler’s Girl-Power Web Comeback Finally Gets Premiere Date [Comebacks]
• Amy Poehler to Launch Digital Show on ‘Smart Girls at The Party’

Strike.TV – Big Names and Big Ideas but Audiences?

Image via Wikipedia

So, Strike.TV launched this week.  Founded during the WGA strike as a place for Hollywood creatives to flex their muscles, the site is now home to a huge list of original short-form web shows featuring everyone from SNL’s Kristen Wiig to TV vet Bob Newheart.

That would be big news except that it isn’t.  Having been up now for over a week I can tell you this much: not one single person in my life has mentioned a single one of these shows.  Why?  They had no idea they existed.

This is the big failure right now in online original video – nobody is bothering with true marketing.  You would never launch a show on NBC without marketing so why does everyone thing they can launch a show online, where it is noisier and more crowded (and one click away from porn!), with no marketing?

Viral is a myth.  Want proof?  Ask your friends if they’ve seen that new show from the people who bring you THE OFFICE (“House Poor”).  Spoiler Alert: They haven’t.

Related articles by Zemanta

• StrikeTV Launches Quality Online Distractions in HD

The Viral Prediction Game

I’m really digging a new feature over on NewTeeVee call Will It Spread.  Not only is it a funny play on the web-sensation Will It Blend, but the idea behind it provides plenty of fodder for discussion.

Each post features a new video to hit the web and tries to guage the video’s potential to “go viral.”

This week they look a video by Viral Veteran Andy Samberg that was originally on SNL.

“Viral Qualities: Andy Samberg wearing something ridiculous, many cats, tiny baby pug dog.

Star Power: Christopher Walken (also wearing something ridiculous), Senator Chris Dodd.”

Check out their post for the rest.  Can’t wait for the next one.

Does Live Video Matter?

SAI has some numbers on the users and viewers of the many free live-streaming options that have been popping up and sucking up VC rather rapidly.

Turns out the numbers are quite equaling the investment, yet.

“The biggest site, LiveVideo, had 1.13 million unique viewers in February, according to Nielsen’s VideoCensus. That’s enough to earn it 49th on Nielsen’s list of top video sites — and to beat Sony’s Crackle (nee Grouper). But it drops off dramatically from there.

Second-place streamer uStream, supposedly a Microsoft buyout candidate, ranks 142nd among the top video sites. That puts it between iVillage Network (141st) and one above Atom Films (143rd), in terms of unique viewers of video. And Justintv, the supposedly redhot home of iJustine? Just 82,000 unique viewers, Nielsen says — enough to earn it #369.”

This isn’t especially surprising to anyone who has spent time watching the average live-stream.  Like most of the videos on YouTube, it isn’t that interesting.  And, unlike the video’s on YouTube, these “broadcasts” never really end.

Sure, there are some exceptions and it is here that we will begin to see some growth.  The first issue is figuring out what NEEDS to be live.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.  Think how few things are actually live on TV.

The news. Morning shows. Sporting events. SNL.  That’s about it aside from the rare stunt programming.  As the tech gets better and the streams get more clear sports will be a big part of the live-streaming world – look how well CBS did with their live NCAA games.  I’ve even heard anecdotal reports of people “broadcasting” sporting events of their own tv, via webcam, to the web for those who can’t get it in their region.