A river that needs crossing political and tech blogs - On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance, on the geek side there is naivety and over- complexity

My videos are on these two youtube channels visionontv 3,832,876 views and undercurrents 22,689,976 views

 

Enter your email address:

Entries with tag draft .

Training, video livestream local meetings

I have my doubts with this would be effective but it has the potential if you could get groups of people to actually use the technology consistently and setup the online infrastructure to back it up then I think actually might/could have an effect.

Using mobile phone with an external microphone and mini tripod the meeting would have to take place in a circle around a small coffee table. The microphone would be connected to the phone by an adaptor then a long cable. This would act as a talking stick which might improve the meeting process anyway ;)

The microphone acting as a talking stick would go round the circle. The camera mobile phone in the centre could be turned to face the person talking if that person wanted to be on camera.

With permanent online inbeds and an video list archive it could actually be quite interesting.

Optional: People could join the meeting virtually however this would be harder to manage for various reasons, audio feedback ect.

That said it's a lot of work for probably possable little outcome. If it was done well and people stick to it, might have an effect as it could expand your outreach and create a lot of online content.

Upsell: Would give a constant overview of the network and link diffrent groups.

Q&A of the OMN autumn 2015

A DRAFT (copy and paest of a chat useing realmedia as an example)

this needs a edit for sense, but my back ach dusent alow this so out it goes

We need an Executive summery of why visionontv failed.

- we didn’t de-brand fast anufe

- we went nimble anufe to be relaverent.

its going to be a struggle to reboot grassroots media with out highlighting both of these

its fine for brands to be "periphery"

the is no excuse for lack of nimbleness.

We built generations of p2p tech against the flow of failbook and its activist NGO takeup.

Now - we can only aggregate YouTube videos

yes but that's ok, in the interim, As our tools are broken

If we could spread the realmedia WP install up this would be easer to explain the p2p side of OMN

 

With out working tools - we can only build proxy sites to hold space.

Youtube play's list are one

Q. The question is: what can people do NOW

Its a chicken and egg - we have to use the tools we have while making clear the tools we need.

Yes YT embeds are a tool we have – Q. but they should not be attached to the 1400 video account of a particular media project

A. Get embeds from the visionOntv noid of the OMN with an explanation why is far from perfect.

Q. it looks like we're doing it to promote our work?

OK this is interesting

we're not, but that's what it looks like

need to avoid the whole branding thing for this

in terms of the interface, what's the difference between an embedder (of an aggregator) and an aggregator - is it a completely different UI or a different use of the same UI

Q2: If I as an aggregator like RealMedia's agregation, it would be natural to merge the two - or why don't I just add to RealMedia's? In other words, isn't there a desirable and natural tendency towards centralisation?

Other way up - as an aggregator, I like RealMedia's aggregation, minus their videos about endangered animals, so I take those tags out, and become a subset

Then I add a few tags which I think are missing, creating a new and I think better aggregator

but Real Media has a publicity budget, so no one knows about mine....

etc etc etc

 

Yep to last one, you can create a new aggregated but each stage in the line adds a delay. So Realmedia embeds will update before your one.

Its also based on trust - which you gain by doing.

 

Why trust a site that is slow and dues not add anything

The can be a badging syteam

I am adding stuff - taking away dross IMHO and adding content

Our site has 233 embeds, imports 124 feeds and exports 23 feeds etc

why don't we have mother ship that any aggregator has access to?

The new site will have lots of low numbers.

But the same content, 10-20 min to a few hours later.

 

Q. so the first and biggest always wins?

Only if the put huge amounts of real value into tageing and moderating.

Which had s work. With out that a smaller sight will be faster and better.

why wouldn't i want to better use my time by helping RealMedia's or mother ship's aggregation rather than creating my own?

You can - the is a tendency to specialise thus the will always be a better site than general news sites if you are pashernate (and peopulr who put the work into aggregation will be pashernste)

So Realmedia will likely stay a nich site for its subject - I can't read it for example.

but why don't people build their aggregation inside another aggregator?

The OMN has a "market" mechanism of checks and balances built in. Will be very hard to stop geeks "improving" these out...

They can

 

If the aggregate allows it users (embeds) to retage with no or fast moderation then you can build a aggreater inside an aggreater. Just like we can post our stuff to failbook and theurtube.

If your passionate build your own.

The is a server/bandwidth/moderation cost for every RSS feed you add.

 

Q. archive.org has a centre - how is OMN different from that plus some aggregation tols?

so it's about shared cost

And trust and shared passion - the whole is bigger than the parts.

Its a leep for the verticals... Thus the resistance.

 

Like the open internet

 

"a leap for the verticals" - Im clearly trying to establish "a leap into what exactly?"

(btw i find realmedia's content incredibly dull as well!) but i was hyposthetising

ok im going to assume for now that this can't be explained

This n the 4 opens...

Which is the opens that the regional internet was built on

Original

Portals are pre web.

Education

...

Pre web is a failed strategy...

 

no one is thinking pre-web

 

 

 

Q. ok the data soup - stuff gets in there by api?

so it's add your stuff, and get the ability to filter out other peoples'

ok the aggregator closest to source is best....

closest to the general soup

 

Have been thinking about this

People think the is a centre yo the OMN that will look after things. The is none.

You are Completely responsible for who you link to and the data. The is no centre to take care of you or this.

The is massive redundant linking and data storage.

The is roll-back if things go wrong

You can put a feed on moderation if you aren't sure. But this will increase your workload and slow your updates so better to be sure.

Its a trust network.

Trust and risk are yours. The is no centre to meditate this trust

If you can't build trust then you will have a uphill struggle making aggregation work for your media project.

TRUST

 

This is the hard jump for verticals.

Imperfection - is. Roll back in a complete failer or retag for a miss step.

Things happen you react to them. Rather than you reside first before things happen.

Its the original IMC of publish then moderate.

Of courses "verticals" can still use it, but they will be slow and plodding.

Just put everything on "moderation" and don't trust.

Or if your sensible a mixture of the two.

A good site will link well and let the data flow. Tweaking here or their. Unlinking if trust is broken and not addressed.

 

I find it hard to understand the verticality view point thus dearly directly address it.

 

Hope the helps, interesting for me to glimps the vertical view

 

To recap verticals can and will play a roll in the OMN but the exciting sites will be the ones that let the data flow through good linking based on trust.

The latency of layers of aggregation will push sites to specialise in subject - the best sites will be a group of trusting focused sites that each specialise.

Feeding a trusted middle site.

Top sites are easy to build but very hard to add value.

Bottom subject sites are harder to build and add a lot of value.

Easy to add value.

The latency is important as its the driving force to link to the site closed to the bottom you can trust

You can have a easy to site that has perfect content but is late to update.

Or you can have a fast updating middle site on a subject.

I would look more at middle sites

My mum would look at a top site.

Etc.

 

So to recap the skill in running an aggreater is to link as close to the bottom as you can trust. For you core news feeds then maybe get tag based feeds off middle sites to widen your coverage into full news feed.

 

A valence of building trust/handling/moderation.

Balance

 

Archive.org is a top down categorisation of knowledge in a signal place. The is little flow.

It has no need for trust

Its an archive not a news site.

Do you rember the crap conversations we had about the hive website were they got rid if the network and whent vsck to a signal site. That's archive.org were is the value of a network, its hard for verticals to see.

...

 

 

On the subject of the OMN YouTube account - somebody would be responsible.

Q. With your top, middle and bottom sites, you're implying a topography, which can be drawn as a graphic, presumably

It's a hierarchy, without value attached to different ranks - hmmm

Yep the value is nebulous, just like the original internet nobody thought it would work because it had NI identity, no security and was completely based on open trust

Much like early indymedia

Etc.

 

You could explain the projecting a way that verticals will understand. With moderation though out ect.

 

No centre/nobody responsible/built on trust

Its a good idea that's needed and will likely work well

Its hard to understand that the OMN is just open standards... Everything eles is up to the users/producers. The OMN dose/is nothing.

...

The outcome is a framework for linking, taging and outreach.

The framework is just structure, no content.

Q. so where is the content soup?

Yes it shapes how people cooperate. It Push greed and selfishness to the edges as much as it can

 

Q. what does?

The framework bounded by the 4 opens.

 

Its stored across hundreds of sites around the work, its backed up in many university's, archives and on your local hard rive if you wont it.

World (thousand, hundreds of thousands) and some one in this will keep a surviving backup. Thus nobody is responsible to do it. Though they can and will because that us what some people do

Its KISS

Couldn't be simpler

Has complex outcomes though...

Just like the internet.

Torrents already do this to an extent. But as the content is mostly stolen nobody keeps it.

Thus is fades.

This is of courses the text content and meta data. The video/audio/images

 

Would be more complex, a bit more "centralised" but still completely diy.

 

Can boot strap by yseing wikicomns and aracive.org so can be put to back of mind for s year or two.

Because storing lots of text in a database is easy. Big media needs more work.

Not impossible but hard to boot up the project and deal with it in the same diy way.

So aggregation is text and meta data. Media is still stored on original servers. Can build sine simplistic caching in to keep it running and scaling at boot up as needed.

That become a issue if we are very successful, nice problem to have.

Media storage of video/audio/images are left "more centralised" in partner silos - wikicomes/archive. Just to start otherwise we gave bug technical issues of scaling at the front end.

Keep it KISS

 

Q.

For example archive can seed torrents so can be the bases if torrent streaming. But that's later. Just use youtuve vimio embeds to kuckstat. Don't make people jump to meany hoop to soon. And all thus stuff can run in parreral anyway.

KISS

 

OMN is much less centralised than torrents. But we keep media in cirpurate silies and friendly NGOs to help boot up.

In that the media will be more "centralised" than torrents

Can do torrents at the same time but s distraction for me.

This idea is based on computers and storage getting cheaper each year so people can host big databases. This is what's happening.

Thinking. The most underplayed part of the OMN is the 4 opens...

The rest is just KISS RSS aggregation

 

Q. How do you stop porn appearing on your site. You link to a site you trustvnot to put porn on your site

...

Hard sell... But visionOntv has and real media have both proven it can be done etc.

New journalism - Stories grow from the soil

This is two draft's of a project for the end of the summer

FUNDRAISING FOR THE REAL STORY

Stories grow from the soil, they grow from social/geologic conflicts. Thus an interesting place to start a story is from the mud and dust where it stands. With this in mind we are fundraising to offer new perspectives on an urgent reality. We will walk across Israel for 6 weeks, interviewing people in the communities we pass through. The countries' perspectives will come from the actual grassroots, from the mud and dust. Traditional media is already covering the story from the top down. Who is covering where it matters?

Visionontv has the track record and expertise to make high quality, immediate reportage available globally. We will be shooting and publishing 3 video interviews a day, 5 days a week (using visionontv's innovating mobile reporting templates and technology) for a total of nearly 100 interviews. We will build a website to permanently embed these videos as well as syndicating them widely to all contemporary media hosting sites and social networks. We will use visionontv's auto updating media player to embed the videos widely on appropriate sites around the web. We will work towards having hosting/publishing on partner sites such as (****) in NYC and the (****) in the UK.

We have most of the equipment, time and skills to do this - all we lack is a basic budget.

Budget

£3000 to cover 6 weeks of reporting

Video equipment: £300 (external mic, lenses, solar charging set-up)

Second backup camera phone: £500

Air fare £400 x 2 £800

Insurance £50 x 2 £100

Website £300

Subsistence £100 a week (for both) x 6 £600

Backed support (publicity and social media etc) £100 x2

Contingency £200

Total £3000

The plan would be to fund-raise on Kickstarter and ecwip) and leave the UK in *** 1st. 

#

Walking across a country – reporting from Israel to Palestine #

The modern world is full of seemingly unsolvable problems. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has been ongoing since the 1940's and has now reached a deadlock. The are some cultural/media crossovers but at visionontv we have a very B&W view of the conflict.   

On visionontv we have been aggregating together all the best non-traditional media news videos into a stream of contemporary media. In the Israel – Palestine conflicts we have had a huge bias towards news from the Palestine perspective (link) which is obviously the opposite of what you would see on traditional media (link). This mismatch is normal for traditional media but problematic if you are interested in building a new, wider/more balanced contemporary media.

Our wider project at visionontv is to template new media techniques  for journalism (link) This is to counteract the normal new media approach, which is to have hundreds of cameras covering the same spot, few of them distributing their images and very few doing the journalism to put it into perspective.

Stories grow from the soil, they grow from social/geologic conflicts. Thus an interesting place to start a story is from the mud and dust where it stands. With this in mind we are fundraising to try a new template – new technology and old paths. We will walk across the countries involved in the conflict for 6 weeks, interviewing normal people in the communities we pass through – the countries' perspectives will come from the actual grassroots, from the mud. Traditional media is already covering the story topdown. Who is covering where it matters?

We will be shooting and publishing 3 video interviews a day, 5 days a week (using visionontv's innovating mobile reporting templates and technology) for a total of nearly 100 interviews. We will build a website to permanently host these videos as well as syndicating them widely to all contemporary media hosting sites and social networks. We will use visionontv's auto updating open media player to embed the videos widely on appropriate sites around the web. We will work towards having hosting/publishing on partner sites such as **** in NYC and the **** in the UK. 

We have most of the equipment, time and skills to do this all we lack is a basic budget.

Budget £2500 to cover 6 weeks of reporting 

Video equipment £200-  external mic-  lenses - solar charging set-up

Second backup camera phone £500

Air fare  £300 x 2   £600

Insurance £50 x 2 £100 

Website £300

Subsistence £100 a week (for both) x 6 £600

Contingency £200

Total  £2500

The plan would be to fund-raise on Kickstarter and acwip and leave the UK in *** 1st.

The problem of the chattering classes in activism

DRAFT

All the quotes are from Oscar Wild.

“If you pretend to be good, the world takes you very seriously. If you pretend to be bad, it doesn't. Such is the astounding stupidity of optimism.” LADY WINDERMERE'S FAN

The chattering classes are a problem, they are a clear and present block on social change, they colonise successful grassroots movements. They take up dominant mind share and spend all of the institutional funding on pointless fashion/NGO projects.

Middle class privilege and education dulled by post-modernist “thinking” combine to make their voices loud and persuasive in the blandness of surtatety. They smother the creative sparks in the dampness of their passions, mind space is watered to a diluteness that kills the thinking of movements, the slightest change is dampened and reversed.

“Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everybody in good society holds exactly the same opinions.”
THE REMARKABLE ROCKET

The chattering classes while being generally lovely people are a problem for the very needed possibility of an alternative to our current society. And its hard to right or talk about this issue with out seaming petty.

“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”  DE PROFUNDIS

What is to be done? Think the can be overlapping strategy’s to address this, one would be small affinity groups working on different project based on common standereds so they interact and build on each other. The other would be the old left postative discrimination – though this it self is often “captured”. Ideas please?

“Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon. Only people who can't get into it do that.”
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST

An idea for internet TV from 2001

This is a old draft from the early ideas stage of visionontv

Short proposal

 

Imagine a TV channel where anyone can put anything in and take anything out, which streemed personalised channel just for you. To achieve this we can use the internet to make jump from current TV to future TV by providing the simulation of a traditional streaming channel personalised to the viewer, while at the same time opening up the interactive possibilities intrinsic to the mediam (and the age).

 

A global TV channel, starting small with the current technology and skills, in stages moving into an open universal global media outlet. The content can be freely added by anyone, from more conventional channels or archives to new community or low-budget specials. Content can consist of local issues on council flower beds to the latest Hollywood blockbusters. The e-comers model will mean that all content whoched will reseve a revenuw.

 

 

Undercurrents in the Mainstream

The Trojan Horse Application

 

A Universal TV Channel

 

A proposal for a world-wide workers co-operative approach to New Media

 

By Hamish Campbell

 

We are moving into a cybernetic age, we rely more and more on computers in our everyday life, the mainstream of this is a dulling social control by faceless corporations. However, many people are attempting to use technology as an extension, a facilitating of human potential. Imagine a TV channel where anyone can put anything in and take anything out. Imagine a personalised channel just for you. To achieve this we can use the internet to make jump from current TV to future TV by providing the simulation of a traditional streaming channel, personalised to the viewer, while opening up the interactive possibilities intrinsic to the internet. That is carry a profile of people's interests and work at stretching that profile, just challenging them enough - to widen their tastes, to give them the opportunity to follow different streams.

 

The project is similar to the interactive book in Neil Stevenson's novel "The diamond age", "A young lady's primer". Which by interactive story telling instills confidence in the readers own wearth and influence. In this, it has an ideological path - the pursuit of freedom and justice. Our art and craft as a TV channel is to make that path visible and accessible to a wider range of people. Firstly to inform, secondly to spark off the interest necessary to leave the bland confurt of the mainstream, to follow more humane secondary streams.

 

The project sets out to make real the liberal ideology that our societies applaud. It is an attempt at "concrete-utopia", the transmission of the best within our society as it stands, rather than the more normal, problematic, radical approach of overthrowing the status quo to create the new.

 

Thus the channel inbody’s the mainstreem liberal ideals of:

  • Individual liberty

  • Equality of opportunity

  • A mixed economy

  • The green, world approach and local approach.

     

     

    How this will work with broadband Internet TV

     

    Profiling

     

    In the mainstream the mantra of who, what, where is not new, though with interactive consumption it is taking on a new importance. Profiling is big on the NET, everyone is after personal information to "personalise" the alienation of blind consumption. Looking into this can of rotting worms can we find anything worth composting to enrich our garden?

     

    Proposal for a self-directed TV channel.

     

    A global TV channel, starting small with the current technology and skills, in stages moving into an open universal global media outlet. The experience for individuals is that each has a channel of there owen, and you can sample others' channels by amalgamating them with your own - you meet someone, and like their outlook... merge their profile into yours. You like a pop band, merge their channel to yours. This will create overlapping virtual community channels.

    In its interactive shape the channel can be made up of tasters, with a list of viewing options, or can be set to play a more traditional no-interactive schedule. Instead of reaching for the TV guide, just look at the options available on your own channel - or any other global mainstream or counterculture channel.

     

    You choose what to whach as any interaction will bring up a new list of content - much like a real-time review engine. The system then "creates" a channel for you [these will be made up of basic templates*]

     

    * The templates will be baced on traditional TV scheduling the differences will lie in the content. An example would be the BBC 1 schedule. News and life styeal for breakfast, daytime soups, B films, early evening???? Local and global, News then mainstream drama and documentaries, music and such. The programs would be a mixture of live streams (news and sport), new productions and seareals mixed with archives. All profiled the majority to your inclananation, with links and a minority of conflicting views. This will be mixed in with a "random" selection of the "best" that others profiles are watching and some deserving editorial "gems".

     

    Your profile will be adjusted in real-time by your choices of program subjects, by your choices of what is in your profile and, finally, you can go into and directly edit your profile.

     

    The content will be freely added by anyone, from more conventional channels or archives to new community or low-budget specials. Content can consist of local issues on council flower beds to the latest Hollywood blockbusters.

     

    The individual or corporation who adds content, fills in a basic profile for the program. When submitted, this is first sent to "reviewers", that is people who have expressed an interest in reviewing content. They then each add to the program's profile and when there has been a large enough consensus the program is dynamically added to the schedule, with the new consensus profile. The reviewing process is open to all. The System is open to content from all over the world.

     

    All the profiling data is dynamic. If you give a program a good rating its whole profile will be merged with your current profile. Trashing a program will reverse this - it will subtract the profile. This process will be elastic in its effect - it will have a moderate immediate effect and a smaller long term effect. Thus if you are a sports addict and for what ever reason you trash three sports programs and chose a comedy program instead, for the rest of that day you will get comedy and "teasers" of other subjects, the next day you will get half comedy and half sport... on the third day you will get the majority of what you watched on the second, and some of any "teasers" you followed. This process works in reverse, with individual viewers' profiles affecting the profile of the programs themselves.

     

    The profiling system will work as a tree, with top levels and side levels branching off. The top levels will be decided by the user's profile, and then dynamically adjusted.

     

    Some profile categories could be:

     

    Fixed: nationality (country/region); language (spoken/subtitles); type (film/documentary/news/sport/commercial, review; subject (searchable key words) etc.

     

    Variable: quality (good - bad), accessibility (easy - difficult), violence (child - adult), erotic (conservative - liberal), ideology (progressive - reactionary) etc.

     

    This approach would be modified for live streams and real-time news features which would work on a system of trust - that is on an registered profile of the organisation - which again will be adjusted by views real-time choices. Self profiling by active intention and passive consumption.

     

    There are also interesting statistical ways of collecting and processing such information, which could be included.

     

     

    User interface

     

    The basic interface idea is simple, a single button that gives you the option of trashing content you are not interested in. Interface options vary in their level of interactivity, encouraging interactive uses rather than leaving the channel on autopilot.

     

    1. Dumb - by trashing programs the user doesn't like and rating those they do.

    2. Basic interaction - by choosing from the cued up list of possible programming that is provided with any user interaction.

    3. "What mood am I in?" Expressed by the web - sliders - the users can express an interest in certain areas by elastically/temporarily changing the sliders on their profile. (dynamically created by their profile, with one or two challenging additions)

    4. Traditional key word searching (with or without the aid of their profile).

    5. Directly changing their profile (this complies with data laws).

     

    Options

     

    1. You can make your own, or organisations' profile public so that other people can watch it and you can watch other's... Undercurrents, football stars, NGO's, Channel 4 etc.

    2. You can "merge" others profiles in to yours, such as an organisation, famous author's or popstars. Which will provide an easy way of getting an interesting personal channel, and seeing the world from different points of view.

    3. You can bookmark TV series and news services, so that they always appear when a new content comes out.

    4. Key words can form part of your profile, such as a city, person or brand.

     

    It is important to realise that any large "outside" change will soon be personalised by your own interactive choices reshaping your profile to represent (and challenge) your point of view. A Universal TV Channel is not about dumming down people, it is about taking away the dull bureaucratic routines needed to choose “quality” and "truth" in our heavily commercialised and consumptive world.

     

    Funding

    Is flexible and from a number of conflicting sources. It is interesting to note that the content providers and viewers can choose which revenue funds their viewing in real-time, and this will also control our revenue flow. In this the project is one of a viewer/producer workers co-operative.

     

    Funding roots

    Advertising

    E-commerce's commissions

    State money (grants/regional funding)

    Sponsorship

    Donations (PBS)

    Pay per view

     

    Advertising is very problematic, but the money has to come from somewhere... we could accept advertising and feed this to people's profiles - for the mainstream this is the goldmine of revenue, and just like goldmines it has the problem of wide spread pollution. The adverts would directly pay to the content providers (video makers) a commission on each viewer with a cut for us as the provider. This is the dream of mad consumptives, though we live in such a world.

     

    Links to commercial sites - both mainstream and counterculture - the balance is decided by people's own profiles. We take the standard Internet commission for referrals and any purchases that these create. It is important to note that adverts are profiled just like programs.

     

    Public service? Government money? If this was possible, we could then pass this onto content providers and take a more respectable running cost commission. A good source of funding.

     

    Donations, the old PBS projects. May work for special interest groups, again we have the opening of taking a small commission in the middle.

     

    It is important that a proportion from each revenue stream is cross subsidised to all viewed work. Thus the mainstream movies advertising would pay for the counterculture response. Creating the liberal (and free market) ideal of "perfect knowledge".

     

  • cut for video producer.

  • cut for redistribution over whole network.

  • small cut for the host server of the video,

  • small cut for channel(us).

  • small cut for channel's production grants.

 

Thus we are not only a voluntary distribution network, we also pay for content, bringing a wider and more creative mix of local and global content.

 

Next Steps

 

Approach

This is the freeing of human potential, the profiling is not to facilitate people wallowing in their own ghettos. Each channel needs to always carry a wide range of views. For example, if someone's profile was largely shaped by sex and sport, the programming would not only be filled by pornography and golfing, but links and teasers for programs on the effect of pornography and the destruction of wildlife by the building of golf courses. In this example, if the viewer followed one of these links, their profile would react and bring up more options - a small, different window opening into a larger worldview.

 

Structure

We need a production, editorial and management team. The net, like any "unmoderated free market place", is filled with dross. An editorial level above the reviewers would add a holistic view to the information flow. Human beings are created by their society - if we do not consciously attempt to shape its flow - we are in continuing danger of polluting and despoiling our commons.

 

C.f.: Gerat Harding, Tragedy of the commons.)

 

Technology

1. We need to write a database to hold the profiling information, the channels templates, and provide and input page for content.

2. To create the user interface and local web TV application.

3. Sign up content deals with current Internet video hosting sites.

4. Work on the financing and management model.

 

Time table

This project is now technically feasible, relatively inexpensive to setup as a technological prototype. Marketing would be by rumour and users word of mouth (viral marketing as it is called)

 

6 months for programming and setup

3 moths testing

3 moths to get up to speed with content and video hosting.

Full launch of mature product in 1 year’s time.

 

Cost

For a minimal budget setup, in the region of £200,000 for the first year. Have office space in Oxford and access to an experienced development team in London.

Showing 5 results.