Among the "buzz" words in 1999 and 2000 was the so called "New Economy". Couldn't read a paper or watch a news channel without hearing or reading about it. Well, what happened? Where'd it go? Haven't heard or seen it referred to, by any media, since late last year. I'll tell you where it went! It went no where because there was never any such thing. All hype from companies (streamers being among the most notorious of the lot) looking to cash in on their IPOs. Forget reality.

Sure, I have a web site. Been online since mid '95. And yes, I believe the Internet's the most dynamic tool ever devised by God or man. But "New Economy"? Not a chance.

Another phenomena of the late '90's was the way companies were hot to hire anyone with a degree in computing, especially those under 30. Figured they'd help them compete in the "new economy" by building their sites and managing their e-marketing. This gave the whiz-bang techno-wizard the opportunity to show off his talent by using "frames", along with an over reliance on "javascript" and the latest "flash app", to overcome the lack of content or objective. One only need to take a look at Amazon's, Ebay's and/or Yahoo's Home Pages to see what works, in terms of stickiness. Forget megakb graphics that impede download time. Get to the point, offer options and make your site navigation simple and points of interest easily identifiable.

So, the Internet frenzy of the era gave ample opportunity to those willing to use "Bells & Whistles", "Smoke & Mirrors" and "Spin City" (all of which go hand-in-hand), to further their own money making aspirations. Corporate America is now re-taking notice of the fact that it takes experience to be good at something and that only recently are there people experienced enough to lay claim to being good at web design or, more specifically, e-marketing.

Let me give some background. I've been in the Video Industry since 1980. Done it all. Had a large rental store til 1988 when I shut it down to go into marketing Special Interest Videos (a catchall phrase for everything but theatricals and smut: Health & Fitness; History; Parenting; Travel and a ton of others). Also produced a couple of instructionals along the way: Pro Blackjack and Pro Chess. More recently I've been involved with marketing 99 Captioned Classic Movies (links below).

Now, for the main thrust of this article - Streaming Content over the Internet: Beginning in early 1998, because of our URL and the content we have access to, we started receiving content inquiries up the kazoo (we also handle over 5000 PD and unregistered titles). Said inquiries were from the biggest bear in the woods down to rank wannabees. They all expressed interest in our content. None of them were ready to part with any money. It got so heavy that I decided spend 5 weeks out in LA last summer taking a hard look at the business and meeting with some of the players that had contacted us.

One streaming company came down from San Fran twice to meet with me. Sent directors the first time, VPs the second. Guess they'd figured VPs impress people in the Old Economy. Sure got that wrong. Shows you how much those in the "New Economy" understood those in the "Old Economy".

Anyway, I asked the VP me why they didn't pay up front monies for content. His answer, "we don't want to scare the VCs". Swear to God, that's what the man said. But he was using "new economy" reasoning, which musta been "we don't want any goods in the store because it'll get in the way of our smoke and mirrors".

To digress a little - expanding on the store analogy - SI producers sell to all types of retailers: video stores; mass merchants; supermarkets and others. None of them, repeat, none of them ever tell us about their "cost of doing business". Why? Well, mainly because that would give rise to us telling them about our "cost of production", which would result in both parties spinning their wheels instead of getting down to business.

Another thing: none of the aforementioned retailers would stoop to say that they'd be "doing us a favor by giving our programs a platform". Why? Well for one thing, we appreciate the fact that they already have an existing customer base or we wouldn't be there. For another, they're too busy keeping pace with, or trying to get ahead of, the competition. Sooner or later streamers will come to realize the same thing - business 101.

Back to my meetings with streamers: this time with a "CEO" no less; the guy said, in response to my saying a serious streamer would put money up front, "Sure, one or two might pay but it's not how Internet companies in the New Economy are used to doing things". I replied, "I know what Internet companies in the New Economy are used to... and making a profit isn't it. They're used to raising VC money, issuing glowing press releases and such. Then they sell some stock and go down to the Bahamas to bask."

Now don't get me wrong, I can't say that I blame them. Probably do the same thing myself, given the opportunity, but, being from the old school, I didn't get it, didn't even go looking for it, although I knew perfectly well it was happening. I'm so old fashioned I figured you got to earn it... the hard way. Still do.

More recently I was on a sales call with a serious seller of videos that I was trying to sell an E-Marketing Plan I'm working on. He shut me up when he said, "we did 4 million online and you're trying to tell me that you know more about e-marketing than I do!" Well, like I said, that shut me up for about 5 minutes, then he got to the point where he told me "it only cost us 5.5 million to make that 4 million in sales." My response, under my breath, "Wow this new economy is fantastic, it takes money to lose money and you come out a hero". Yea, right!

The amazing thing about it was, I don't think he realized the import of his statement. He believed he was the cat's meow. That must of been another aspect of the "New Economy" (that being logic, or the lack thereof). No wonder it disappeared.

Anyway, all of the above is true. Those things happened and were said.

The TV industry serves as an ideal illustration of the way I feel the streaming industry will gravitate. Take CNN; Fox; NBC; et al; their viewers aren't interested in peacocks, so to speak. They want good programming - content - they demand substance over form, every day of the week. Internet streamers would do well to follow the example of successful TV broadcasters, who, by the way and for the record, pay for content. They understand the "Old Economy" maxim, "You only get what you pay for."

Sure producers are looking real hard at streaming and why not. It's another "method of delivery", albeit more in the future than in the present. VHS, DVD, Broadcast and Cable TV are all happening right now. It remains to be seen whether streaming will become a viable (read profitable) "method of delivery", although I will say this, I can't see how it can miss. It's up to the producers, the content rights holders and streamers to join together to develop a reasonable and sensible business model and, in particular, one that will treat potential customers fairly. I invite anyone interested in exploring this to contact me, be you a producer (content provider) or a streamer. We go together like ham and eggs. Contact info below.

In summary I'd like to say it's the same old story - form versus substance (content). Which one's more important? I'm sticking with content. That's what sivideo.com is all about. Always has been, always will be. I will admit that without form, substance may wallow, in that substance follows form. Well, the form is here and getting better, everyday. Likewise the substance. Now it's a matter of joining hands. We have mainstream as well as niche content, with the contacts and skills required to bring the niche to the table. Below you'll find some links to same. We can locate just about any type of content you need, all you have to do is ask, and be ready to ante up.

Streamers, are you listening?

Stan