RE: FLASH: Flash usage on the Net?

[Wayne Townsend]

Hey Paul,  thx for the post, it's a situation we all face at one time or another.


Been there, so I'd like to offer a comment.


Stats are always suspect, because there is so much bias & outright lying that goes on about them.  Platform wars, browser wars, tool wars, etc.  It's hard to believe anyone with a fist full of stats, for in reality, nobody 'cept God really knows what the true web numbers are, because the one thing you can count on is that they change minute by minute in this game, and no one has a meter.


So, taking a "stat" defense is always a risky proposition, at best, in my experience.  Try not to get sucked into a battle with that as your only weapon.


Fortunately, there is another tact that you can take that's a lot more substantial.


Collect yourself a list w/urls of the big, smart players that have embraced Flash technology.


Ummm...  United Media, Disney, Microsoft, for starters.  Dozens more than those, and many many more coming on-line every day.  And many more than that are in curious development.


Ask the doubters "Is there a new desktop computer sold today that doesn't have this streaming Flash  technology installed from the get-go?"  There's a good reason for that.  These guys aren't dumb.


If internet media leaders like those mentioned above (and there are many times what I mentioned) have embraced streaming Flash technology, you can believe that it's a very safe bet that your client can as well.


What your client does *not* want to do is invest their website development dollars in first-generation technology, i.e. html, static images, and text, because they'll just have to do it over, and sooner than they'd like to, or they will wind up with a public image that does not convey a rapport with what their audience wants.  And the competition will eat them up for that short-sightedness.


What does the audience want?  It's not hard to see; they were brought up with movies & TV, and "production values".  They know nothing else, and expect nothing less.  The convergence of TV-like production values to the computer is where the internet is going.  It's no coincidence that even both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates agree on this fact.  Not to mention a host of other infinently more qualified media individuals who make their livings by knowing how to appeal to today's mass audience.


The internet rescued the computer business.  It did so because it transformed the box from being a tool that a few of us needed to do our job, to a *passive*, *giving* media where content flow direction became reversed, pointing outward toward the person watching in front of the tube.  What a nice, but not wholely unexpected development.


The internet has given people *a reason* to own a computer, where none existed for them before.  Because of this, there will be more of these computers sold in the next few years than all of the past 20 years combined.


But, you can't throw a good party unless all of the players come to it. The other side of the equation is that the designers, the creatives, the content providers, ( and the best ones), have adopted Flash in a big way.  Two reasons...


<<long pause for dramatic effect>>



Oh, you want to know what they are.



First, designers don't like limits.  They like to put on-screen whatever they can dream up.  Until Flash, the web had *major* creative limits.  It was like asking a talented movie producer to put a newspaper up on the screen.  Before Flash, web design was often a technical, aggrivating chore - not much fun at all.


Second, designers feel, and rightly so, that they deserve to make a lot of money.  After all, it is they that create the experience that gets the audience involved for the client in the first place.  


And, it ain't easy to lay golden eggs everyday.  So, show us the money to get us out of bed.


To achieve their personal goals, the designers must have a mass audience provided for them.  This is where Flash has succeeded far beyond what any other technology has which came before it for the web.  And by a long, long way.  Flash is arguably the most successful web enhancement technology in web history.


Is today's Flash the end all and be all?  Well, of course not. It's evolving everyday. But 1000mhz processors are coming, sooner than many think, and then more even.  And at that point, the production values of what we can achieve in production values for the computer box is going to exceed any other gadget that came before it, including TV and radio.


You're on the right path, Paul.  Stand your ground on Flash. It's the best thing you can do for your client.


As long as your at it, pitch the other complementary technologies, like RealPlayer streaming video.  Flash is built into RealPlayer, btw.  Go on that path and you'll find the other big names - CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., etc. to add to your stance.



Are all of these pro's wrong?  Or does your client need for you to help them understand what's going on here?


Best of luck,



HTH,


/wayne





>Ken/David/Russell, I got all of your emails -- thx for taking the time to

>send.  Russell, in response, could you send a list of the whitepapers you're

>talking about?  The only ones I've seen are on MM's site.  Are there others

>that have similar studies?

>

>Some background on me.  I'm a webdesigner that is new to this list, is new

>to and loves Flash and is fully into using it whenever and wherever.  (My

>site is http://www.electroglyph.com .)  Like some of you, I also have to

>make $$ to live off my freelance business.  I need to be able to make strong

>recommendations to my clients about what technologies to use on their sites.

>Pretty standard.

>

>Here's the situation.  I am being requested to be in a beta-testing program

>for a small startup company that's implementing a Java solution to rollover

>buttons and navigation.  I'm not really into it or into using applets, and I

>sent the guy all of the stats on Macromedia's site about # of Flash users,

>ease of install, richness of delivery, etc.  He sent back mail with a couple

>of critiques:

>

>	1) The methodology was suspect.  He contends that the survey was done only

>among MM's target audience (designers) which skews results.  I checked out

>KB&P's site and couldn't really tell.

>	2)  He says that he has access to the logs from a very large general

>purpose access site (9 million hits/month).  Their stats show that almost

>30% still use 3.x browsers and that virtually none of those have Flash and

>don't even work properly with Jscript.

>	2a)  He contends users don't download plugins.  They just leave if they see

>they'll have to in order to view content.

>	3) He had a horror story about trying to install Flash to test for a client

>that insisted that her company's site use it.  The only browser it worked on

>was IE on the Mac, and he said that after all that, her site activity went

>down drastically after requiring a plugin.

>

>I've personally had no problems with installing the new player on our small

>PC network in our office (WinNT4.0 and Win98, IE4.0, cable modem through

>proxy server) -- it's been about as seamless as you could ask for -- but the

>other stats gave me pause for thought.  So, I thought I'd check with the

>people in the trenches about what your experiences have been.  Otherwise,

>all I have is MM's word against this guy's company's word -- co. against co.

>leaves me nowhere in this discussion.  Things that make a difference for me

>(and others like me on this list) are third-party surveys, testimonials from

>developers/customers on traffic increase from Flash use, online third-party

>stats, etc.

>

>Thx for patience with this long email.  Thoughts?  (FYI... Original three

>questions I asked are below.)

>

>Paul

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

ownershocker [dot] com

 [mailto:

ownershocker [dot] com

]On Behalf Of Russell

>E. Unger

>Sent: Saturday, March 13, 1999 3:04 AM

>To:

flashershocker [dot] com

>Subject: Re: FLASH: Flash usage on the Net?

>

>

>I'll agree with you Ken...

>

>I think we've all discussed, in one way or another those issues that were

>brought up by Paul.

>

>What I don't agree to is "blind compiling" of statistics

>a) through a somewhat biased (albeit very honest) group

>b) by someone who I've not seen many posts from to begin with

>c) that have answers already in various whitepapers

>

>No offense, Paul, but perhaps a little more sharing?  I know I'd love to see

>the results of these statistics, as well...

>

>Russell E. Unger

>ZAX Communications

>Multimedia & Internet Design & Development

>630.953.9320  :tel

>630.223.6916  :vm/pgr

>

pagerzaxcoms [dot] com

  (text messaging via pager)

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Kenneth C. Sherwood <

uniqueptd [dot] net

>

>To:

flashershocker [dot] com

 <

flashershocker [dot] com

>

>Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 4:53 AM

>Subject: Re: FLASH: Flash usage on the Net?

>

>

>>Paul Mossbarger wrote:

>>

>>> Hi all.  Got some related issues I'm curious about.

>>>

>>>         1)  Are there any statistics on how many people currently

>browsing have the Flash plugin?  I've read the stats on Macromedia's site,

>but I was

>wanting to compare real-life experience with their stats.

>>>         2)  Are people generally willing to download a plugin to see a

>Flash site?

>>>         2a)  In your experience, how seamless is the plugin installation

>on either browser?

>>>         3)  How do you sell clients on whether or not to use Flash? Mine

>often balk when I let them know it involves a plugin.

>

>>

>>                      ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^Why did you request this?

>Yours are

>>certainly questions that *I'd* like to see the answers to, and I'll bet

>many others

>>here would too.

>>

>>That's why responses to Qs on this *email list* generally go to *everybody*

>...

>>

>>:-(

>>

>>Ken Sherwood

>>

>>

>

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

>email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

>N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

>For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com

Wayne Townsend

WebStaffing.Net

Princeton, TX.

http://webstaffing.net

waynettopher [dot] net

------------------------------------------------------------------------ To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

 N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe. For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com