This is not the case with iTunes. I really enjoy the their method of promotion.

The iTunes “storefront” displays a constantly updated array of newly available content and top-sellers in different categories.

But it also personalizes its suggestions for the user, dividing those suggestions into categories. I think this solves the problem of trying to market to a person who just bought a country music CD because their Aunt Barbara happens to like Kenny Chesney. That person just won’t click on the “country” tab and instead will look at iTunes’ suggestions in different categories.

iTunes also attaches suggestions to most of its content. For music, this comes in three forms: information about what else other people who bought that content have bought, playlists created by iTunes that include that content, and popular playlists created by other users that include that music.

You can also browse those playlists on your own. This is where the older content really comes in. If I happen to love a certain band from the ’80s, I will also be able to check out other songs that iTunes associates with it and other songs that my fellow lovers of this ’80s group adore. Once I click on those songs, I can find songs related to those songs, which are related to other songs, which are related to other songs, etc.

Most of the content is reviewed by iTunes staff and rated and reviewed by iTunes users. You can see which songs are the most popular downloads. I feel like I never have to listen to the radio again to discover new music I love.

I see these same methods on the BBC’s website. The front page is the “storefront,” with the most recent content the editors think you’ll want to read. The bestsellers are listed as the most popular and most e-mailed stories of the day. You can click on different “playlists” depending on what area of the world you’re interested in.

Once you open an article, the righthand column displays other content associated with that article, both old and new. And once you open those articles, you might find links to other content. It’s hard for me to just read one article on the BBC’s site.

And, further, how can traditional media even capitalize on user-generated content? If a media company wanted to have more user-generated content they could just hire people to blog, but I don’t think this is the same thing as having independent bloggers. If traditional media companies have bloggers then they are susceptible to that company’s governing standards. Part of the beauty of blogs is that they, for the most part, are only subject to the authors standards. And, yes, that means you will get some that are offensive, untrue and just plain dumb, but without that opportunity, you would have less voices, and less people are able to share their opinions with the world. I do think that media companies need to find a way to integrate user-generated content for the sheer value of surviving economically. I just fear that by integrating user-generated into the traditional model it could lose some of their unique value.

I guess it wasn’t clear, but what I meant was that while we are learning about internet, internet, internet, the dean who made these changes was taken to task by a guy who just stuck by old-school reporting. David Spett (who I’m not fortunate enough to know) went out and just asked the questions. He did the journalism.

We’re learning about the medium, we’re learning conceptual stuff about the internet. I wish we were being taught to do what David Spett did. That’s all I meant.

Participating in television shows just doesn’t do it for me, particularly the “light-entertainment sector,” whatever this means. I’m curious to see if it will spread to genres like politics or nature shows, though I’m pretty sure these too will not get me to text a vote. I’d rather write my representatives, sign my name, and get their take on things. A personal connection, that is.

Texting a vote is so anonymous, and I don’t really know if it truly would be used for such high-minded things as “legislation permitting.” Nor would the sample response to shows like these necessarily be representative of a general consensus, because there is no certain way to identify the audience. When there is something wrong in the world, I’m not likely to sumbit my grievance to a TV show where my response becomes the property of a corporate network.

And to think that playing these games means my phone number will be used for market research, or to give me a courtesy call reminding me to keep watching? Yuck. Give me something good to watch and I will come.

Now my question is, do you have something against David or is the issue because the “best journalism” was in a column in the school paper? I’m going to assume the latter. Does it matter that the content was delivered in a column rather than a regular article? Likewise, does it matter whether content is delivered online or in print? Personally, I don’t believe it does.

One of the things that stood out to me in this article was that it suggests talented people will prevail — their material or blog posts are what people will pay attention to. It’s a nice idea. However, I agree with Maude. It seems like so far with the Web, for the most part quantity matters over quality. My question is, is the paper using “talented” synonymously with “trained”?

As Brenna already mentioned, I’m not sure they were right about the rising use of VOD. Deloitte suggested that the growing number of households with broadband connections would increase the desire to download movies. If this is a trend, I certainly don’t know anyone who is a part of it. I think the main impact high-speed connections have had on online video-watching is the increasing popularity of streaming television shows off of the networks’ Web sites and through sites such as Hulu.com.

1) Criminals making use of the economy of Second Life to hide the source of their funds is a great idea. It’s just so brilliant is makes me want to have illegally obtained cash to launder.

2) Social Networking sites will never make money charging customers for “privacy” for their pictures and videos. If any of the big networking sites did that, people would flock to those that did not charge for the privilege. And believe me, there would be plenty that would not charge.

I agree that social networking sites are faced with the challenge of figuring out how to mobilize their massive user bases to make money, but the weakness of Deloitte’s suggestion illustrates just how hard it really is to make money from these sites.

3) For me it was amusing to see the report focusing on making money from user participation in television shows. Instead of finding growth opportunities in audience participation, TV Producers had to contend with a writer strike that crippled what looked like a safe stream of ad revenue. And even more interesting, since the strike originated in a tug of war for money derived from new media, the rife opportunities of this developing media environment actually proved to be a liability to the Networks in 2007.

1) I think it’s somewhat naive to think there isn’t an all-out print-pixel war. While there certainly may be a utopian answer where the two could peacefully coexist, I think most newspapers are struggling to figure out how that’s going to work. Did anyone hear about The Capital Times, the Madison, Wis., newspaper that moved completely online? (Yeah … this somewhat scares me, because I intend to go to a Lee Enterprises paper.) But is it all a bad thing? It’s not as if the paper is being replaced; it’s just evolving into a new format that works better and makes more sense for this generation. It’s probably 15-20 years off, but I do think you’ll be seeing quite a few major papers moving primarily online.

2) One reason online hasn’t completely replaced print yet is that papers’ staffs haven’t overcome the learning curve, both in content and ad sales. The idea of selling a virtual banner still leaves some old-school ad execs at a loss. How do you charge for that? Based on hits, visitors, clicks? Once this becomes standardized, I think you’ll see more big-time online moves. In the Capital Times case, they said they would continue to put out a twice-weekly free publication. I think this could be a great compromise and would allow them to continue to put out special sections or advertising inserts, coupons, etc.

3) While large media companies may still be having a hard time figuring out the online ads, it’s the small-time bloggers that are finding success on their scale with online advertising. (I’ve made $1.65 so far. In the money.)

4) I don’t think you’ll get much profit off asking people to pay for privacy. You want to share something without other people seeing it? That’s not difficult. E-mail it. Most networking sites do have privacy controls. If you want to be my MySpace friend, you need to know my last name and I have to approve you. If you ask to be my Facebook friend, but I don’t want you to see any of my pictures, videos, friends comments, you get booted to the limited profile. So if these networking sites plan to take those controls away and then start charging for them, I think it’ll be met with a lot of protest and maybe lead many of those borderline, should-I-or-shouldn’t-I users to cancel their accounts.

I do want to add to the Netflix/Blockbuster boxing match: I read a few months ago in the NYT that Netflix had signed a deal with an internet or cable company (I don’t even think I read beyond the Daily Headlines email so forgive me here) to eventually bring movies right to your TV - eventually making the little square envelopes a thing of the past. Picture On-Demand with every movie in Netflix’s library. In that case, who would need to get up and go to Blockbuster? Paul could watch Superbad at the drop of a hat.

I was interested by the concept that user-generated content just isn’t of the best quality. For the most part it’s true, but maybe the sheer volume of bad stuff is blinding us to the good stuff. Some woman in New York keeps a brilliant blog at http://theuglyvolvo.livejournal.com/. Why she doesn’t have a book deal yet, I don’t know, but she’s at least as talented as many bona fide writers out there today. Is she less legitimate because her content isn’t company-backed?

That said, user-generated content DOES usually suck. Comments and ratings always make me cringe because at Northwestern, I sometimes forget that really, really stupid people are out there making a lot of noise.

There’s something shifty about online companies selling my own privacy back to me.

And there’s something about the phrase “monetize their massive user bases” that sounds unwholesome to me.

Anyway, I think the key to getting online users to bite on “long-tail advertising” is to find something people like and integrate with it in ways that doesn’t completely disrupt the experience. One example, and I hate to sound like I’m advocating this too strongly, is CBS’ solution to having clips from its shows leak onto YouTube. Taking an “if you can’t beat ‘em…” approach, the network cut a deal and created its own YouTube channel with more than 5,000 clips (and these are actual clips from shows, not just commercials); the twist is, they are pioneering a sneaky new advertising technique in which a small gold line appears on the video player bar, and when the playhead comes to that position, an ad rises up within the bottom part of the video window for a few seconds. This approach allows the YouTube content to continue without interruption, CBS to make money off of the site rather than sending take-down notices all day, and for me to watch Dave Letterman clips while only being mildly irritated! And best of all, you can click an “X” to hide the ad.

Like Brenna, I think the author has really missed the mark with his dismissal of on Video-on-Demand. Not only, as Brenna says, is internet TV a huge commodity right now, but Netflix is poised to change the home video market forever by the end of this year, when it will release a set-top box that will allow users to instantly download movies with the push of a button. No more 48-hour BitTorrent downloads for me!

And while some people think consumers would be hesitant to buy yet another clunky gizmo for their home theaters, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings told the Wall Street Journal last week, “No, that’s not a concern… And the reason is, if you’ve got compelling content, people will hook up another box. Things like the Wii sell out in dramatic numbers. The Wii’s selling two million units a month. Why? Because there’s something you want to do with it. So you’ve got to have some compelling content. But the idea that people will never hook up another box is patently untrue.”

That compelling, cutting-edge content, I think, is what people shell out the big bucks for.

I think the prediction that user-generated content is an opportunity for media companies is correct. YouTube is wildly popular and it is overwhelmingly controlled by users and the content they upload. Sure, some big media companies offer their shows on YouTube and people watch them, but YouTube is a tool for the average Joe to throw in his two cents of video.

Their prediction that user-generated content could bolster media company’s own entertainment offerings is compelling. There are already countless fan groups for various artists and actors, so if they find a way to harness that interest they will grab people’s attention and make more advertising money.

I think their prediction with TV and shopping is off. We’ve had QVC and the Home Shopping Network for longer than I can remember. Why shop on the TV when you can shop online where it’s far more interactive, far more user-controlled and a lot more convenient to do anywhere? I can shop in the office, at home or on the train with my computer. I can save results, bookmark items I like and track shipping.

Shopping on TV is cumbersome and I really don’t see it taking off.