freemium

freemium / virtual online / web2.0 — 12 Comments
25
Jun 10

Unity3D and OpenSim Working Together Prototype

As we mentioned a few weeks ago, we have been hammering away on connecting the Unity3D viewer to our OpenSim servers. It works. You can see it for yourself if you go over to http://heritage-key.com . Arrive in the virtual gallery and check out a selection of artefacts like King Tut’s death mask, Stonehenge sarasens and a Terracotta Warrior and also learn a bit about Ancient World history. The main goal here is to give people a taste of what is on offer in the fuller version of our virtual online areas.

Our challenge is to get mainstream online users into virtual online experiences. Often people don’t know what is even possible, but fear the hassle of finding out.  This new viewer capability lowers the hurdle significantly. Is this the future for museums? Maybe?

Note, we are asking for people to register to Heritage Key, but the visits are as guests on the sessions. There is only one type of avatar and you get a guest id–so it is a little confusing to chat to people! (Avatar does sort of look like Cali Lewis? ). We will integrate the Heritage Key user info shortly.

What You Can Expect to See with Unity3D and OpenSim:

The region content in this scene is identical to the Preview region that we have running for guests on Heritage Key, so you could compare yourself. In fact it would be possible to have Unity3D sessions concurrent with the mod’d SL viewer sessions. We need to do a little more work on this, but it already works.

The graphics are pretty simillar. The main difference you will notice is that the lighting is darker.  We have the main artefacts set-up as full bright. It is the dynamic lighting that is a little dim atm.

We have added interaction on various objects. If you click things will happen, like the Warrior changing from current monochrome to full color. You can also click to get more information about the pieces on display.

Some of the many prims that you will see were originally created in Second Life, so it is also proof that Second Life assets can be 1) pulled over to OpenSim and 2) displayed in a browser.

The avatar should seem a lot snappier that SL/OpenSim as the physics are run on your computer. You can use your alt-cam controls also. Chat works also.

More To Do, More Options

There is still quite a bit to do, but now people without any virtual world experience can get a good taste of what lies beyond their browser.

I still think the web app will offer a more robust, more immersive experience, but if no one uses it then, so what?  This browser capability also opens a lot of avenues for smaller scale virtual online without abandoning our OpenSim assets. And we can also work directly in mesh which is a massive time saver for high-quality content.  We have a new King Tut artefact in progress now that will be a purely Unity3D scene.

And the Unity3D pipeline should allow us to send content to Android, iPhone as well. Smartphones don’t really have the horsepower or graphics–yet. My guess is there is a little work to do on that for UE, but technically it should flow if we get the Unity toolset for those platforms.

We appreciate any comments and suggestions for improvements. We will put it out on the public side of Heritage Key in a few weeks once we have a look at any issues/bugs. We will also have a new facebook integration to promote our fancy new Questing system–stay tuned on that, it is very cool.

Go take a look at the Unity3D plus OpenSim prototype now: — > http://heritage-key.com/blogs/jon-himoff/better-way-experience-virtual-online-our-browser-viewer

(who is Cali Lewis? Check her Geek Brief blog here and also watch her xlent podcasts on your iPhone/iPad. She rocks!)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

freemium / virtual online / web2.0 — 2 Comments
8
May 10

5 Top Issues Holding Back the Virtual Online Experience

Day 2 here at the MetaMeets conference in Dublin and some ideas on the future. While we are seeing millions and millions of people jumping into Facebook games, the uptake on 3D Immersive Online is more or less flat. Why?

1. Wrong Target

While SL defined a kind of virtual online experience, the Virtual World as a consumer offering is not scalable.  The “land” concept benefits mainly the platform operator and not the content creators–who pay more for that resource than in general they can recover (ok, some people beat the casino, but most don’t). The fetish about being a “land owner” or the belittled role of being a “resident” are not compelling to mainstream audiences.

virtual welcome 01

2. Persistence is Wasteful

What people will want is content on demand — not a false “land-centric” view of content that can only be accessed via pushing your avatar into a crowded (=laggy) or empty (=lonely) area. I think a more interesting target is “Placeness” which helps people understand content and consume it. But Placeness does not have to be persistent and can be delivered to multiple instances and even allow variance. So rather than have people queuing to enter a virtual area like King Tut’s tomb, we can provide that on-demand in whatever configuration a user wants. As well, if virtual content is not needed it is not rezzed and consuming server resource. It would sit in a database and be called when someone needs it.

3. Online Integration Needs Context

While people will want an immersive experience online, they don’t want to be cut-off from the web threads or have to register a new account. Facebook already bridges a lot of this. But the main point on integration is from a user experience perspective–in that you do things on the web or on mobile and they are seamlessly pulled into the virtual or push back out.  The virtual experience should not be some isolated experience.

4. Technical Hurdles

It still isn’t that easy to get into a virtual online session and move around. We still see a lot of issues with people trying to use wireless and laptops and getting in, but then having crashes, lag etc. A wired connection is a lot more stable.  School environments have a lot of firewall issues as well. We have a new Unity-based browser viewer that may address some of this, but not without some issues.

5. Lack of Compelling Content

We have about 8-10 hours of content on Heritage Key now which is very engaging, but of course it is not that vast or varied. In fact no one grid can ever be enough to meet the interests of the entire online userbase.  And content will need also to be more complex and high-quality to justify getting paid for it. There is also an issue here about what platforms to build new content for. I don’t see how anyone can make big investments in closed platforms where the created assets are not easy to archive or repurpose. Further content creators need clear copyright control over their work.

A Vision of the 3D Web Future

Our vision of the Virtual 3D Immersive Experience that should be more compelling might be described as (ok this is still a work in progress):

* 3D = not 2.5D

* High fidelity = photorealism for content including Avatars (of course this can be styled, but point is about quality and detail)

* Immersive = makes you feel like you are in a place. So actually if this is right the idea of having a virtual experience embedded in a browser is not that important.

* On-Demand = how you want it, when, where you want it

* Avatar-centric = built around user experience and social interactions. Avatars also need better, more fluid controls and be reactive to users in a rich manner.

* Useful = adds value to tasks, transactions, processes that are needed. I think this is a hard challenge to meet and in general it is difficult to deliver. There are a lot of opportunities for making entertaining education content, but this market is difficult monetize. So, beyond shooter games what will consumers find interesting?

* Pay-to-Use =Better Monetization Strategies. If making money on selling “land” is not scalable then what is? Advertising is obvious, but will need the scale that is missing at this stage. Paid to play will hit the quantity/quality challenge. Yet, pay to play is working for kids online and of course WoW makes it happen.

* Federated = thousands of interconnected grids all opt-in and controlled by their own grid owners. Moving between these grids should be seamless and secure.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

freemium / web2.0 — No Comments
22
Mar 10

FT Strengthens Paywall, Does Special Google Access Track

naked girl swinging from chandelier sketch wallpaper

Ft.com is swinging from their chandeliers with 120,000 paying online club members. But is a closed community a long-term play?

Getting people to pay for content is the major focus for online. The Financial Times is taking a big lead in this area with more than 120,000 paying customers forking out £4 a week = £500k/week revenues . They claim to have 1.9 million registered users as well. The FT is an interesting case study as it has a very loyal following, is globally respected and customers have money.(ok, so WoW has 11.5mm paying customers paying £7/month)

This move raises some interesting questions? Is 120,000 a large or a small set of customers? More to the point is £25 million in revenue a year a  big enough number? For the FT as a publisher any cash has got to be good cash. They post 480,000 daily paper readers. They claim 55 million pageviews and 2.7 million unqiues. As a guess maybe the can monetize 75 million page impressions and yield £2.5 which is less than £200,000 month. The New York Times said back in 2008 that they needed 1.3 Billion pageviews to make online interesting– they only had 173mm at the time.

What is the trade-off? Blocking traffic will certainly reduce pageviews big time. Fewer pageviews  reduces click related ad revenue. Anyway for the Ft.com even if they lose 50% of their pagewviews–they only need 25,000 new customers in a year to break even on their paywall–which is less than 1% conversion on their uniques. The FT is really a sort of financial club, so is losing a bunch of non-payers even negative? More likely it will make their paying customers feel like they are getting inside track/info.

A bigger issue for FT has to be the cannibalisation of the newspaper subscribers. The better the ft.com offering, the less likely it is that busy jet-setters, captains of industry will buy the physical paper and just take the iPad versions. Probably 80% of the 120,000 paying ft.com customers also are within the 480,000 paper subscribers.  Do you want the FT twice?  Do those customers care? Or are the delivery mechanisms useful for different purposes?

The New York Times, which is not clubby and has much larger circulation and online viewership,  is launching a premium content plus special viewer offering called the Times Reader 2.0. It is an interesting move to make the paper more interactive online — cool enough crossword puzzles!  Maybe they will have special first person shooter games soon — play the Obama administration game of hunting up votes in Congress?

Dropping the free access also expands the market for their competitors–like Economist or Yahoo Finance. Economist is still trying to get their own paywall gambit lined-up.  Bloomberg is free on tv also.

The dual track access via google search is perhaps ok as tech solution to peek and pay, but really looks like bait/switch. Hitting the excerpt is more frustrating and I don’t think will help FT eat their customer cake and sell the crumbs to the unwashed public.

In terms of online community — is there something to consider about a closed community versus a public one?  Perhaps this paywall strategy will do quite a bit of damage to the randomness of comments and the dynamic nature of what the ft.com could be otherwise?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

freemium / virtual online / web2.0 — 5 Comments
1
Mar 10

Real-Time Social Web Market Size / Stats List

So the question inevitably is just how big is the the future of online, real-time social communities.  “Really big in 2013″ is the the sort of bar napkin answer.  Combine the opportunities of social media with premium content and digital goods to see that this new offering is in the sweet spot of online growth (outside of Search) in next 3 years. More sizing on the overall online market in next few years data below.

Foundry Wall Mural Shoreditch, Feb 26, 2010

Online market continues to expand and will leap into 2013 with mobile, social net and MMO driving innovation online. Search will continue to eat up traditional ad spends.

Key Notes on 2013 Forecasts:

* Mobile web is finally here? maybe! 2013 Gartner guess there will be more mobiles than pc’s by 2013. Screens will still of course be small, but fast access to net and better processors will allow new user experiences and constant contact with online services/content.  Looks like a battle for iTunes massive/dominant marketshare from Nokia, Motorola is on the way also?

* Advertising is diverting more and more from traditional to online–50% seems to be search related. Online advertisers like the transparency to link spend to customer transactions.  But– costs for search are growing rapidly (great for Google of course). Display in rich media/video also is hot for advertisers to get above the noise and have mindshare for early adopters.

* Premium content — via iTunes and paywall are growing rapidly. And high margin (Activision sets 30% margin targets).

* 600 million PCs will be able to play MMOs by 2013 — making PC the dominant access point (source PCGA) despite Mobile growth? Clearly these will need to co-exist and deliver a unified experience across brand.

Growth in advertising/interactive spend online

*$36.7 Billion 2013 up from $15.2 Billion 2009 (BIA/Kelsey via techcrunchies) meanwhile traditional advertising will decrease from $115 Billion 2009 to $108 Billion 2013.

* 2013 $14.3 Billion (from 7.8 2009) in US Display ads = rich media and video pre/post > source Forrester.

* 2013 $2.2 Billion social media (from $0.75 billion in 2009) > source Forrester.

iTunes/other app and premium content sales

from Gartner 18Jan2010:

* $29.5 Billion in 2013 up from $6.2 Billion in 2009.

* 87% of downloads in 2013 still will be free suggesting the “freemium” model is still best way to generate premium content sales as well as generate mobile ad revenues

Mobile Ads

* More mobiles than PCs by 2013 (1.82 vs 1.78 billion) Gartner.

* $3.1 Billion in 2013 (Kelsey via Clickz) of which $2.3 Billion will be search.

Sales for Digital Goods

* $6 Billion by 2013 (source Piper Jaffray via emarketer).  Report also notes that revenues in virtual worlds are dropping, while increasing in online social games

General Trends

* Highlights from Comscore Report via Marketingcharts: on reach/clickthrough: “Even as new capabilities emerge that leverage the “social” value of the medium, this channel already delivers substantial reach for ad campaigns and despite low click-through rates, there is measurable view-through value from these ads.”

* Olympics Viewers Multi-task(Nielsen via marketingcharts)= twitter and facebook while watching events.

* Top Ten Freemium conversions to Paid (source techcrunchies) = 1. Contact members, 2. Access to experts, 3. Storage, 4. Ad-free browsing, 5. Custom domain, 6. Enhanced gameplay, 7. Enhanced support, 8. Member visibility, 9. Networking, 10. Private groups

* Activision Blizzard CEO remarking on $4.28 Billion in  2009 sales from titles like World of Warcraft, Guitar Hero: “Despite these challenging times, in 2010 we remain focused on expanding operating margins by growing our high-margin digital/online revenues…we expect to deliver a year of record net earnings and operating margins and are taking another step towards our long-term objective of operating margins of 30 per cent or more.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

convergence / freemium / web2.0 — No Comments
26
Feb 10

CNN and Across the Websphere: Press Coverage on Heritage Key Virtual Areas

It is one of our great challenge to push virtual areas out to mainstream audiences around the world. One day virtual online will be the interface to the web–but now it needs to find a good way to add value to sites and other media (read more about dead mice and the liberation of the net here). With our new Ancient World in London series and launch of Virtual Stonehenge areas we are starting to feel a little warm from the press and blogsphere! Thanks!

Check links below or just go to our virtual, online, 3D immersive areas and make your own great discoveries now on our opensource-based, opensim grid!

Recent coverage on Heritage Key and our King Tut Virtual area on CNN iDesk –> click to watch it here . It is a nice explanation of the main idea and enthusiasm from presenters is excellent!

(there is an sorta annoying pre-roll add that you can’t skip and opens a new window if you touch it–future of monetization? Force feeding ads?)

Other recent press/blog coverage :

* BBC News: As an interactive community, Heritage Key also allows visitors to join lectures and meet with people from around the world to share and discuss their experiences.

* Easier.com: This immersive adventure is complimented with a media-rich website. So, whether you want to step back in time and see Stonehenge, watch YouTube videos on your iPhone

* Tech Radar: a mainstream application of a once niche feature that reminds us why we all thought it was such a good idea.

* Iggys Blog: Improved Avatars and Navigation

* Virtual Learning Blog: I’ll definitely be back to King Tut Virtual! I have a classroom of 2nd graders who study ancient Egypt every year. This…will be a lasting resource for the future!

* Vorticism blog: I was therefore thrilled yesterday to discover Heritage Key

* PocketLint — Sorry no Spinal Tap at Virtual Stonehenge (but that is a good idea!)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

freemium / web2.0 — 3 Comments
7
Oct 09

The Economist Erects the Paywall (follows FT)

The Economist, who runs Drupal like we do as their core CMS btw,  sent me an email today explaining the free access to their site will change dramatically on October 13th. Content from the print editions and .com articles older than 90 days will only be available to digital subscribers–who will pay $79/year or $19.95/month. No Free Looks at the Newstand and Fewer Online also There is also an “academic” subscription for 4 months at $30.

Ben Edwards, the publisher, further tells me in this email (and really I didn’t even know I was registered on their site even) “We will also enhance the experience we offer our most loyal readers by expanding our subscribers-only features.” So, the Economist is trying to link loyalty with paying–seems like a terrible idea. Loyalty comes at price? In fact they are the ones “taking something away” from their audience without really offering some new value. So where is the loyalty on their side of the relationship? Wouldn’t it be more compelling to offer a subscription that added more than the free offer? Or maybe just state the truth–we need more money and less noise from too many users? But let’s see how it goes.

The Financial Times has been charging for content for some time already at £3.99/week = $640/year! The Guardian ferreted out of them that they have about 110,000 payers = more than $7mm in annual revenue.  Guardian quotes Lionel Barber from FT:  ” He said the new digital world “poses a threat but also an enormous opportunity to established news organisations”, and warned that the “mediocre middle” was most at risk.”

Looks like the Economist is going cheaper and after larger base of payers.  They missed the opportunity for the 110,000 and more people that are paying for FT. I guess they will need to market this pay-to-access a lot harder. Right now there isn’t much info on the site to inspire “the loyal” to reach for their cc or pp.

We think the “Freemium” model makes a lot of sense, but how it is introduced, marketed and supported is going to separate the winners from the panicers.  The example of Flickr charging for a “pro” acccount at $25/year seems to work.  There is in fact a massive amount of loyalty for Flickr as the hardcore use it as a key online tool/resource/social area. I would even say that Flickr could reasonably charge more.  Yahoo doesn’t release details on the value of the pro accounts, but we might guess they are worth $5mm–$10mm? But no mattter how you look at it they need other revenue sources–like ads shown to the non-pro accounts.

Freemium needs the revenue mix. The risk of course is that in going to a paywall like Economist is doing, you alienate your overall audience and lose more revenue in the process than you gain.  But maybe downsizing the audience and finding the true core is the way to go anyway. If there is a lot activity on the site, but no monetization from ads/sponsorship, then what is the point of having a .com anyway?

Components to the Freemium Mix:

* Subscribers — trick is to get the offer right and add something to free that is useful, but doesn’t cripple the free access = traffic volume

* Ad revenue — via ad networks, adsense / hard to get this productive without traffic and it can clutter up the site

* Sponsored Content — also good  for co-creation on new content that could deliver big lift for both parties

* eShop — exclusive products/web only — but what to make, offer and can you fulfil orders? and what about returns?

* Affiliate Deals — like Amazon, Commission Junction –which can deliver high cpc values, but maybe not high total revenue

One way to think about Freemium is to consider the marketing costs to attract people to a premium only site. So the Freemium has a built-in flow from SEO if you do it right.  if your content is behind the paywall is won’t get crawled = it doesn’t exist online. Also if you have a community site–well, you need enough people to have  comments, discussions etc. Premium only will never have the same immediacy, scale, rawness, openness as Freemium. So in fact, Premium vs Freemium vs Free sites will be very different experiences.

I think also there is an interesting aspect about the value of the community contributions. Shouldn’t people that make comments, add content get some recognition? We have a points system and can imagine reward activity on our sites. But of course we a fresh view on this aspect, where “old media” is looking to penalize the freeloaders (who in many ways created value for them).



Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post