The cognoscente’s meme of the day is whether or not harsh words on Twitter cut off Sasha Baron Cohen’s “Bruno’s” U.S. box office hopes at the knees. Time’s noted film critic Richard Corliss believes that a decline in opening day revenue to the following day was due in part to bad cyberword of mouth. That is, a flood of movie going Tweeters expressed less than favorable reviews of the film. Given the fact that the average filmgoer cares less about what professional critics say and more what their friends tell them, bad word of mouth can be especially damaging when it is shared in real time. In the old days (maybe 15 years ago) a crummy movie could make it through the weekend with box office intact until folks met at the water cooler on Monday morning.

Pundits who have an excessive amount of time on their hands are combing through Twitter logs to validate or nullify this theory. I believe even if there is a kernel of truth to the “Bruno” mess, there’s a great lesson to be learned for anyone who has a product or service to market or sell: in the Web 2.0 world, a marketing campaign only starts once a product is released. Understanding social buzz and (more importantly) knowing how to react will give new life to the phrase “expect the unexpected.” All the social media monitoring tools and services won’t do a film studio or soft drink company one iota of good if they are not equipped to respond to bad worth of mouth with some agility.

Anyone can plan for success; planning for disaster is another thing. As Monty Python says, “No one plans for the Spanish Inquisition.” Somehow, I sense “Bruno” may be up there with an inquisition.

The move turns Hulu’s lineup into something that closely resembles your average low-end cable system, with only CBS absent, putting TV.com (CBS’s version of Hulu) in a precarious position as it contemplates future moves. YouTube, thought to be the prime competitor to Hulu, has recently added premium content in the form of Sony/Crackle comedies (hold on, is that really premium) and some rather weathered films (“the Mod Squad,” “Carrie”) so the Disney-Hulu deal sets the stage for Hulu passing YouTube in online viewership, perhaps not in total views, but in views of premium content that appeals to major advertisers.

A few more points to consider: still left in play are a few crown jewels whose addition could be essential in this TV 2.0 online programming race. Showtime, a CBS company, is likely to go to TV.com; Viacom, a company not especially happy with YouTube for alleged copyright violations, which has a roster that includes MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, etc. Will Viacom go with Hulu, TV.com or create its own online network? And then there’s HBO, in the process of varied experiments for online distribution. HBO’s move may be closely aligned to the cable industry’s proposed moves into the online space and that brings forth the question whether the current online TV 2.0 space is just a prelude to the emergence of a MSO-powered online presence ala Comcast’s planned evolution of its Fancast site from video portal to cable service add on. Such an offering would be tied-to/bundled with cable service. If that’s the case, Hulu may be just building a content rich, user-friendly service with a powerful backend infrastructure that will be too good for most MSOs or aspiring TV-hungry telcos to pass up. If that’s the case, Google will truly regret it bought YouTube.

Because the official date for the digital transition has been pushed to June, not all the local broadcasters in Phoenix are fully digital. The affiliates are all set, two even have side channels (not sure of the official terminology) that have 24-hour weather. The local PBS station (part of Arizona State University) has four channels at 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4. Some of the local religious and Spanish-language broadcasters have two or three side channels.

Part of the goal of the digital transition is to free up analog space for new communications services as well as allow broadcasters to do innovate things over these digital “side channels.” To be competitive in the new TV 2.0 world, one has to hope that innovation means more than just 24-hour weather channels.

The next step for my TV 2.0 project is to get an IP-based box to watch web-based programs on my TV. The Xbox has some content, but it’s a walled garden in that I have to watch what Microsoft has selected as opposed to giving me free reign to scan the web for video content. The same goes for Apple TV and now that I totally messed up my Boxee interface, I am back to square one. I saw a new box from Neulion at CES that could do this, and I am in the process of installing my ZeeVee box (although not on this TV) for get some web goodies. Stay tuned.

I will be filling this blog with observations and videos from the event, so stay tuned for that. In the meantime, I am trying to book as many appointments in advance as possible. You can send me an email: allen.weiner@gartner.com or follow me on Twitter www.twitter.com/allenweiner

See you there, ya’all

I give a thumbs up to the larger viewfinder, better zoom, ability to take SD cards (which is great as HD clips take up lots of space) and ArcSoft editing/distribution software which facilitate one click upload to YouTube. Yes, the Flip camera also offers one clip uploading, but the ArcSoft program allows you to enter clip title, description, category and tags in its programming while the Flip in-camera software does not enable those features. A thumbs down to the fact the Kodak camera has virtually no on-board storage, meaning you need an SD card to get started (I recommend a 4GB card at minimum) while the Flip Mino HD has 4GB of memory built into the camera.

Size is where the rubber meets the road. My Flip Mino HD fits into my pocket and is 3.94 inches high, 1.97 inches wide and .63 inches deep. The Kodak Zi6 is 4.5 inches high, 2.5 inches wide and .9 inches deep. The Kodak is one-half ounce heavier than the Flip Mino HD. For me, what it boils down to is that the Flip Mino is great for more “clandestine” video scenarios while the Kodak is a hair too large to fit comfortably in one’s pocket.

Comparing prices on Amazon.com, the Kodak is $152.60 ($2.34 cents less if you want one in pink) while the Flip Mino is $201.61. Below is a clip I shot using the Kodak Zi6. To see the HD quality, click on the “watch in HD” tab at the bottom right of the player window.

I already have a host of boxes and gadgets to attach to the TV including an Apple TV, an old Xbox (which is on the install bubble as it’s a little too first generation), a Neulion OTT box (powered by wireless internet), a DVD player, an OTA HD antenna; our XM radio (note to self: make it easy to unplug); an old VCR recorder and one of my PCs (the TV has an easy to locate “monitor-in” port). I do have a ZeeVee box, but have not been able to install it as of yet. As I find new gadgets and boxes, I will report on whether they take me one step closer to calling my cable provider to proclaim, “take this box and…”

Stay tuned.

Sarcasm and bewilderment on execution aside, a cheer goes out to Harper Collins for even considering video books. The concept is bold and (done properly) has possibilities. As a free viral marketing instrument it’s a great idea; as original content with an actual original story and first-class production, perhaps it’s a standalone product. As a consumer-paid-for 20 minute infomercial, it’s a non starter.

In a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal, Chris Anderson (he of Wired and Long Tail fame) contemplates the “economics of giving it away,” the business model that has made the web what it is today: a chaotic playground of ad-supported and freemium services. Anderson suggests “free may be the best price, but it can’t be the only one.” In that spirit, book publishers, copyright holders of some truly compelling and valuable content, are in a position to break free from the shackles of the zero dollar economy and offer web users content worth paying for. As such, Harper Collins is to be applauded for even trying to step forward with this experiment. In terms of execution, I suggest publishers follow suit and not only embrace this concept but extend it in creative new ways.

What makes me doubly perplexed is that 2009 will be a crucial year for Hulu as it faces the YouTube juggernaut in a race for online TV audiences and ad dollars. In the past several months, YouTube has made efforts to rid itself of inappropriate and unauthorized copyrighted content and improved its viewing experience by offering HD content. Hulu should have taken the time and money simply telling the world it is better than YouTube. Curiously, this raises the interesting juxtapositions of mantras as Google (YouTube’s parent) proclaims “don’t do evil” while Hulu sneeringly says it’s an evil plot.

I admit I often am in the dark as to the intent or goal of both networking programming as well as TV ads. My sense here is that the brains behind this spot was the same person (or persons) who believed a weekly eponymous sitcom starring Emeril Lagasse would be a winner.

Note: Sorry: The Hulu ad is not viewable outside the U.S.