Isn’t the most lucrative revenue source TV ratings for the Emmy’s? So would it be wise to give an alternative method of following the Emmy’s without having to watch the show? Wouldn’t a better tactic be broadcasting live via all video channels: Online, Mobile (Phone, ITouch, Tablet/NetBook) , Time Square, contract with Electronics stores to all show the Emmy’s on their floor/window sample TVs etc?
1] Why put on a stage visual spectacular that is then cut down to 140 Characters…or less?
-Make use of all the available Video Delivery Medium’s
2] The Emmy’s is about TV/Cable. It’s about Video. Directing. Acting. Sound etc. All this Twitter and most Social Networks lack at this time.
-If you are going to use Social Networks like Twitter, then make the event so visually over the top that all the tweets were a repetitive form of:
“I can not believe what I am seeing, are you all seeing this?!!
1] Every minute spent Tweeting or Facebooking or cruising Kitten fights Frog videos on You Tube is a minute not available for TV/Cable and premium advertising rates.
2] Social is cold blooded. For every Viral success Social does for Entertainment, there are 10 Viral deaths. No one ever thinks about you the Entertainment Industry when your movie or TV sucks and the Tweeters during the first day just trash your work. Work that took months of development, millions in investment, only to be cut down within 24 hours. Work that employed hard working people. Not even a 3 day or Episode grace period. Not even the chance to live even briefly. Condemned by Social to an early, painful death. What do you owe to Social?
I would spend every single waking minute on ways to incorporate Social into your Shows and Content Delivery Platforms. I would do anything I could that showed how much more cooler the content is where you are (TV, Cable, Video), and find whatever methods possible to bring viewers off screen activities…included in your screen. Bring interactive and Content on Demand as fast as you can bring it to market.