mathewingram.com/work

We all know that YouTube is the number one place for video on the Web, right? Bigger than Google and Yahoo, with 100 million videos or so every day (although MySpace is gaining). And we know that its popularity, according to some, is based largely on copyrighted content like the Lazy Sunday video and the other TV clips and music videos people post, and that other sites offer people more financial participation in the popularity of whatever they post. And we know that YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley is a superstar and that dollar figures like $1-billion get thrown around a lot.

But is copyrighted video really what YouTube is all about? Obviously, there’s plenty of copyrighted content on there — some of which may have been uploaded deliberately by the creators, such as the new music video from Ok Go (choreographed using six Treadmill exercise machines running in different directions). And then there are the ever-popular “mashup” movie trailers like Brokeback to the Future, which is quite hilarious. But a lot of what is great about YouTube (for me at least) is the other stuff — the unusual, the weird, the bizarre, the extremely personal. And I suspect a lot of other people are the same.

On one end of the spectrum there are the stupid dog and cat videos and the “Evolution of Dance,” but there are also moments of real brilliance like the clip of 12-year-old “FunTwo” playing Pachelbel’s Canon note for note on the electric guitar. And then there’s people like the geriatric British pensioner who has become an unlikely star. But one of my recent favourites is “lonelygirl15,” who is carrying on a back-and-forth relationship with her boyfriend via webcam from her room.

Why do I find this fascinating? I’m not sure (Update: I totally missed a NYT blog post about her here). Lonelygirl — whose name appears to be Bree, and whose (apparently religious) parents prevent her from going on a hike with her boyfriend Daniel — is cute, but otherwise unremarkable. She stares into her webcam and talks about being mad at her parents, and at one point she and Daniel argue on camera about something or other. And yet, most of her video clips have been downloaded more than half a million times, and some have close to a thousand comments. She is number three in the “most viewed channels” this month, and number 25 on the most-viewed of all time.

I think that’s what I find fascinating. Is talking to complete strangers about your life somewhat disturbing and even pathological? Perhaps. And yet, it seems like a natural evolution from the blog, which evolved from the diary. Already, there are commenters who assume that Daniel and Bree are acting — and perhaps they are, in a sense. Maybe they too will get their own TV deal, just like another teenaged YouTube star called Brookers. Fascinating stuff.

Update:

The NYT’s Screens blog (by reporter Virginia Heffernan) has an email response from lonelygirl15 here.

Just a short post to note something that I think every current or prospective Web 2.0 startup should probably read — or actually, several things, all of which are related to the demise of Kiko, an AJAX-driven online calendar that got its start in Paul Graham’s YCombinator summer camp for geeks. Kiko has effectively shut down and has put itself up for sale on eBay. The first thing worth reading is a post at the blog On Startups, which looks for lessons in the failure of the well-regarded calendar app.

The post’s lessons are not exactly rocket surgery, so to speak, but they are worth reading nevertheless — including “Google is the new Microsoft” and “Have a plan B.” Equally interesting and worthwhile, ironically (since he is critical of the On Startups post), is a post by one of the members of the Kiko design team, who posted a comment to the On Startup blog with a link to his own version of the company’s demise. Richard White’s lessons go a little farther than the simplistic “Don’t take on Google” — he notes that the day Google’s calendar launched was actually one of the highest traffic days for Kiko, because all the stories mentioned it.

Among other things, Richard (whose post has a comment from Narendra Rocherolle of competitor 30boxes) notes that Kiko lost its focus at a crucial time and thus its launch was delayed — allowing 30boxes and Google to grab more of the spotlight — and that the team tried to make the app a little too feature-rich. Kiko co-founder Justin Tan also has a post-mortem in which he mentions staying focused, and argues that an online calendar is a worthwhile thing to have and not necessarily doomed to failure (Don Dodge disagrees). All in all, definitely worth reading.

Update:

Paul Graham has his own thoughts on Kiko’s demise, which boil down to “don’t fight Google”, but David at Signal vs. Noise disagrees, and Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 says that if Google is the next Microsoft then that’s actually a good thing. Umair at Bubblegeneration says not to cry for Kiko.

As a blogger, I naturally feel compelled to add my two cents (1.8 cents U.S.) to the blogosphere pile-up over Nick Carr’s comments on A-listers and the “innocent fraud” that blog proponents purportedly promulgate — that fraud being the idea that anyone can join the conversation, that there are no barriers to entry, that quality trumps relationships or marketing, etc. To that extent, blogging often seems to consist of bloggers blogging about other bloggers blogging (is is just me, or is there an echo in here?). Call it meta-blogging.

So why do we do it — is it because we love to write, love to think, love to have debates, like to get attention, want to get linked to on Techmeme, or to boost our Technorati rankings, or to get comments and links from other bloggers we respect and/or admire and/or envy? Yes. And to sell our books or get more speaking gigs or get invited to one of Mike’s parties, and so on. I think it’s a mistake to assume that any blogger (Nick included) is fueled by one specific desire or impulse. I would expect the vast majority are motivated by at least a half dozen, some of which may even be in direct conflict with each other. That’s just the way human beings are.

To that extent, I think my M-lister friend Kent Newsome is right when he compares blogging to songwriting, and I think my old-media pal Scott Karp is also right when he compares it to screenplays or manuscripts (incidentally, I notice that hardly anyone has made note of the fact that Kent is the one who got this debate started, which I think is at least a partial refutation of the “innocent fraud” argument). And yes, Rex Hammock is also kind of right when he compares Nick to a troll.

People write screenplays and poems and songs (and paint and draw and sculpt) because they feel compelled to do so, because they believe they have something to say, because they want attention, because they want to make money, or all of the above. They may write one thing for money and another for love, and another for attention. And why do we pay attention to them? In some cases it’s because they shock, or titillate, or because they express something unique, or because they are very good at what they do — or all of the above.

I will note one thing, as I mentioned on Scott’s blog: Nick has responded to many of the people who commented on his post, but he hasn’t answered the question I posted there, which was “Why do you blog, Nick?” I’d be interested in hearing what Nick came up with for an answer, but I suspect it is “all of the above.”

I’ve been meaning to write about a recent post by PR blogger Steve Rubel entitled “reinventing the media interview,” and a friend’s e-mail this morning jogged my memory and reminded me that I hadn’t done so yet. His e-mail also mentioned a response to Steve’s post by British journalist Ian Delaney, who blogs at Two Point Ouch and is apparently writing a book on this whole Web 2.0 thingamajig we’re all wandering around in.

Steve described how bloggers such as billionaire Mark Cuban and Web-programming guru Dave Winer are trying to reinvent the media interview — in Mark’s case, by only doing interviews via e-mail so that he can run the transcripts on his blog if necessary (something Mark’s nemesis Patrick Byrne of Overstock has also done, ironically enough), and in Dave’s case answering questions on his blog so that everyone has access to the answers. Steve (who works for the Edelman public relations agency) says in his post that “there is lots of room to innovate here” and that he wants to “open this entire process up.”

I don’t know Ian Delaney, but I get the feeling that he would like the process to stay exactly the way it is, thank you very much. He says the kind of thing Steve is advocating would be bad, because it would lead to weaker published interviews, long delays between question and answer, and “over-polished and cloned responses” from PR types. He also suggests that allowing interviewees to “open up” the traditional process would subvert one of the goals of certain media interviews, which is to put CEOs on the spot.

Maybe it’s all the relaxation time I’ve had on vacation, but I can see the merits of both arguments, and I don’t necessarily think it’s an either/or kind of question. If you’re a CEO like Mark who feels that you get subjected to drive-by interviews that misrepresent your views, then I think doing interviews by e-mail makes perfect sense — but it only works if you are as direct (and fast) as Mark is, which is quite rare in a CEO. Likewise, I can see why Dave wants to respond on his blog — because he sees the value in having his thoughts become part of the blogosphere record (such as it is).

I sympathize with Ian’s concern about how “reinventing the interview” might affect the hard-hitting Q&A with the CEO of a chemical company, but I would also argue that this kind of interview is hardly a daily event. Not only that, but I don’t think we’re in danger of being swamped by blogging CEOs, regardless of how persuasive Steve might be. And having spent days preparing for canned, smoke-and-mirrors CEO interviews that reveal little and yet are so momentous they have to be written about, I would kill for a fast e-mail chat with someone like Mark.

A little more openness on both sides would probably make things a whole lot more interesting for everyone. There are competitive issues as well to consider, however, as my friend — and competitor — Mark Evans points out.

Much as I’m conditioned to dislike Microsoft products, which in general are bug-ridden and overly-controlling pieces of bloatware (not to put too fine a point on it) I’ll be interested to see whether the company’s new blog tool, Windows Live Writer, can live up to some of its early billing. Why? Because I have to admit that having tried most of the tools out there — including the Performancing extension for Firefox, w.bloggar, Canada’s own Qumana.com and several others — I have yet to find one that does everything I want it to. Could Microsoft have what it takes? Stranger things have happened. And let’s face it, Microsoft is pretty good at taking all the features other companies have come up with and aggregating them.

So far, Om seems pretty excited about Live Writer, Mark has given it a good early review, and Elliot Back seems to think it does a pretty good job too. My friend Paul Kedrosky, however — who is no slouch in the software programming department himself, having put together one of the first blogging platforms back in his GrokSoup days — is less than enthused, saying it is buggy and not very smart when it comes to configuring itself for his blog. I have to admit that his description sounds a lot more like the Microsoft software I’m used to, particularly when it comes to the early versions of the company’s products (please don’t send Steve Ballmer over to my house to convince me I’m wrong, he always winds up breaking something).

In any case, I’m going to give it a try because I’m still looking for the right tool. As it stands now, I mostly use the Web interface to my WordPress blog to write posts, because it’s just easier that way. I can enter HTML directly if I want without having to screw around with a GUI posting interface, and uploading and inserting pictures is a breeze. I had problems with both of those things when I used Qumana and Performancing.com, although I must say the latter was handy because it was integrated right in the browser — and there I have to agree with Paul that having another app I have to install on every machine doesn’t really appeal to me.

I confess that I’m no expert on Second Life. I’ve tried it out several times, for differing periods of time, and I’ve done a bunch of things including customizing my avatar (Mathew McFly) a bunch of different ways. I’ve learned how to fly and how to build rudimentary objects. I’ve danced at a party with a complete stranger — who ran a script that allowed us to dance completely in sync — and was given money by another complete stranger so I could tip the dancer. The other day I even paid some Linden dollars to hit a few virtual golf balls at a Second Life driving range.

So while I’m not an expert, I know a thing or two. I’ve even written about how companies like American Apparel are setting up virtual stores to sell their products to avatars, and how bands like Duran Duran are setting up shop in the virtual world as well. But then I came across the following passage about a “preview pile-up” in the game, and I realized there is a whole lot that I don’t have a clue about. Try to follow this:

“The preview grid took an avatar bashing this afternoon when Vektor and Brent Linden organised a mass pile-on to the preview grid. It was the first time I had participated in a formal pile-on as far as I remember, I have been to the preview grids, but not normally when the pile-ons occur. I was in early, building a waterfall and playing with Starax’s wand.”

“We were asked to join the official preview testing group, and the spam commenced. People worrying about their inventory, others telling them off, people complaining about the people complaining. I crashed. When I came back the sim seemed to have rolled back – from a fully finished waterfall with rocks etc, I had two prims left.”

There’s more. Just for fun, have a read through it and try to figure out what they’re talking about. It’s like reading one of William “Johnny Mnemonic” Gibson’s short stories where he makes up all this weird slang that you have to just immerse yourself in until it starts to make sense. Needless to say, I’m not quite there yet.

From my del.icio.us account — I’m “mathewi” if you want to add me to your network. Or tag something “for:mathewi” if you want me to see it.

• Steve Rubel has a post I meant to write about “reinventing the media interview,” using Mark Cuban (who likes to post the email transcripts of interviews with journalists to correct the record) and Dave Winer (who posted on the topic recently) as examples.
• A writer at the New York Times gets a letter from the mother of “FunTwo” — the 12-year-old guitar-playing prodigy whose electric version of Pachelbel’s Canon on YouTube has to be seen to be believed, and has been diownloaded about 7 million times.
• Supr.cilio.us has a great survey of “what Web 2.0 means” that includes some hilarious responses, including one that says it means “life inside the static” (not quite sure what that is supposed to mean, but it sounds great).
• Through Lisa Williams at the great local Watertown blog H20Town, I came across the first post by Watertown resident Michael Megna, who has cerebral palsy and spent 16 years at an institution for the mentally handicapped because he was thought to be retarded. Like Lisa, I think this is one of the most amazing first posts I have ever read.
• CNet has an interview from behind bars with Josh Wolf, the video-blogger who was jailed for refusing to turn over footage that he filmed of a protest that authorities are interested in. He is getting support from (among others) Judith Miller of the New York Times, who was jailed for refusing to identify a source.

Stock and bond traders are used to the idea of getting income from a future stream of earnings — established musicians have even sold financial instruments whose value is based on future sales of their classic hits or “back catalogue,” a product pioneered by David Bowie. So why not a “bond” based on the future earning potential of some smart young lad about to enter university? Ron Steen figures it’s about time for such a thing, so he has listed himself on eBay (hat tip to Nick Carr for the link).

What Ron is offering is the chance to bid on payments that amount to two per cent of his annual income for the rest of his life, payable by cheque once a year until he is 65. Wisely, Ron has left any potential inheritance income out of the picture, but he has agreed to pay the winning bidder two per cent of any future “windfall” income such as lottery winnings (although he warns that he doesn’t buy lottery tickets).

Ron — who describes himself as a “really good guy” with a “dynamic personality” and a “team player who is willing to learn” (he also says he has no drug or alcohol problems and his car is paid off) — says he will be entering Cal State university in the fall, and wants to pay for his tuition with the money raised by his auction. The starting bid is $100,000.

Update:

For what it’s worth, Lazymotivation.com says that Ron’s idea isn’t really that great an investment (debatable) and that Ron may or may not be lying about his SAT scores.

Matt Marshall over at SiliconBeat makes a point that is definitely worth making — and one that apparently has to be made over and over again before people get it — which is that Web analytics is (to put it mildly) an inexact science. In fact, looking at the Web-traffic numbers reported by Hitwise, Alexa, Nielsen and Comscore makes the weather-forecasting business look precise and infallible. This is an issue that has come up in the past with MySpace and its growth (as I discussed here) and has now come up again with respect to del.icio.us.

The dancing around in Marshall Kirkpatrick’s recent post at TechCrunch is almost comical, although to be fair at least Marshall is trying to get the story straight. He notes that Mike Arrington wrote about del.icio.us awhile back and was critical because its traffic was stagnating, but then had a chat with creator Josh Schachter and some Yahoo folks (I’m sure no bright lights or sleep deprivation was involved — Yahoo is much more subtle) and now TechCrunch is convinced by a Hitwise report that traffic has doubled.

Stagnating, doubling — tomato, tomahto, right? To his credit, Marshall goes out of his way to note that while Hitwise is a “respected” traffic analysis firm, numbers are all over the map — and he links to the other Marshall’s critique of the field. The simple fact is that Hitwise, Comscore, Nielsen and Alexa all use different methodologies (a good description here) and as a result they are not just talking about apples and oranges, they are talking about apples and oranges and plums and peaches.

When you’re trying to make apple sauce, that’s kind of a problem — and unfortunately all it means is that websites can use whatever data they want to tell whatever story they want, and various blogs and media will lap it up.

It’s only one sentence in a long quarterly report (the so-called 10-Q) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but it says a lot about Google’s financial picture going forward (the full filing is here). The sentence says:

“The annual rate of growth in 2006 of our spending on property and equipment will be substantially greater than the annual rate of growth of our revenues.”

In other words, costs are going up and revenues — not so much. The search giant blames costs for the giant server farms that it is building (including the two or three that are under construction on the banks of the Columbia River, which the New York Times wrote about awhile back) as well as increased “cash compensation” for its employees. Apparently all those math geniuses need more than just free candy.

Here’s an item I posted to my Globe and Mail blog after surfing through Flickr, Technorati, Sphere, Icerocket, NowPublic and some other Web 2.0-type sites looking for photos and/or commentary about the London terrorist plot. Thanks to links from Dave Winer and Rex Hammock, the post even made it to Techmeme.

Anyone who remembers the London subway bombings probably recalls the dozens of cellphone-camera photos of disheveled victims and twisted metal in the chaos of the London underground — pictures that became a powerful sign of how important “citizen journalism” or “social media” can be during such events. So far, I haven’t been able to find anything quite so dramatic coming out of the British airplane bombing plot (in part because it was foiled before it could take place, of course) but there are bits and pieces trickling in from various corners of the blogosphere and social-media outlets.

On Flickr, the photo-sharing site, several travellers have uploaded snapshots of airports, including a shot of lineups at Newark Airport in New Jersey taken by a user named “sommerspeople,” with the caption “Yes we chose the worst day in years to take a flight. So far from what we have heard a bunch of terrorists were just caught in london while planning to blow up several cross continental flights. We have been standing in this line for a half hour so far and probably have the same amount or more to go.” There is also a shot of two large containers filling up with liquids and gels that passengers have had to discard. Other photos from user spappyjones are here and here.

Another Flickr user named Tomasz Nowak has uploaded several photos of Heathrow Airport in London, including one of the board displaying all the cancelled flights and one of security outside the terminal. Another user had a photo of a long security line snaking down the sidewalk at Lindberg Airport in San Diego. NowPublic.com, a “social media” network that is based in Vancouver, had a photo of the scene at Stansted Airport uploaded by a user named ShoZu, with the caption “The scene at stansted airport this morning following the terrorist alert – Taken at 6:52 AM on August 10, 2006.” And the BBC, which has been asking readers for photos and comments related to the plot, has a collection of user-submitted pictures that are similar. CNN has a new “citizen journalism service called Exchange that collects user-submitted video and stories, but at last check there was nothing about the London plot.

The BBC had more than 1,400 comments on its “Have Your Say” feature as of 1:30 p.m. EST. And The Guardian’s “Comment Is Free” blog hub had several different takes on what happened, including one by Rachel Briggs. The “open source” news site called Wikinews — which tries to do for journalism what Wikipedia has done for the encyclopedia, by letting anyone submit information — had a developing page on the story with a summary of known facts about the plot, and Wikipedia had its own page about the event. The Counter Terrorism blog had a good roundup of some of the coverage on blogs and various other sources, and so did the blog written by Debbie Schlussel (a lawyer, talk-show host and conservative political commentator) and the blog Outside the Beltway, as well as the ABC news blog The Blotter.

One source of blogosphere discussion about the plot is Technorati, which ranks and tracks more than 50 million blogs. Another is Topix.net, which aggregates coverage from newspapers, media websites and prominent blogs. On her LiveJournal blog, a user named Wonder_Woman214 wrote about how troubled she was when she heard the news because her boyfriend was supposed to be on an American Airlines flight the following day. And GemziGirl asked on her blog at Windows Live Spaces that people pray for her country and our leaders so they make the right decisions to bring about justice.” Kristin from California wrote about the terrorist plot on her blog at MySpace.com and said such events made her think about her life and what would happen if she were involved in a terrorist attack.

Update:

Cynthia Brumfield of IPDemocracy makes an interesting point about “citizen journalism” (or whatever we want to call it), which is that it works great when there’s an explosion in a subway or some other event and there are people on the ground who can transmit their photos and impressions. But when it’s just a plot rather than an actual event, we have to rely on official journalists who have contacts with police, law enforcement and so on. As she puts it:

“Citizen journalists serve primarily as eyes and ears when things actually happen. They can provide first-person accounts of scenes that we can’t visit. But when it comes to complicated, behind-the-scenes shadowy developments, only the pros can give us the information we need.”

A good point. And thanks for the compliments too, Cynthia. Dave Winer credits Doc “Cluetrain” Searls with being one of the first on-the-scene citizen journalists, and Doc clarifies somewhat here.

As a kind of followup to my previous post about how new media is attention, it’s worth looking at where that attention is going, and a recent survey by Ofcom (the media regulator) in Britain gives us a snapshot of that. As summarized by Staci over at PaidContent — a great example of new media if ever there was one — the survey looked at media consumption habits by what it calls Generation N (how did we get from Y all the way back to N?). A full version of the study in PDF format is here.

It’s no surprise that the N in Generation N stands for “networked,” since the network is where younger media consumers like to go (and not the television network, obviously). As the survey report (BBC news story here) puts it:

“There is also evidence of a significant difference in communications usage patterns between young adults and the general population: for example, 16-24 year olds spend on average 21 minutes more time online per week, send 42 more SMS text messages, but spend over seven hours less time watching television.”

According to the report, “share of viewing of terrestrial channels among 16–24 year olds is down from 74.3% of their viewing time in 2001 to 58% in 2005.” Over 70 per cent of that age group have used social networking or blogging sites such as MySpace, and over half of those surveyed used such sites at least once a week. A total of 37% of 18-24 year olds have posted material online (compared to 14% across all age groups), while close to one in five have their own website or blog.

While scanning the headlines at I Want Media, one of my favourite media-news aggregation sites, I came across an interview with Jared Kushner, the 25-year-old who recently bought the New York Observer. For anyone who doesn’t know, the Observer is a pink-coloured tabloid that provides a wonderful mix of politics, art, commentary and other stuff, and has a pretty great website too. Jared is the son of a prominent New York developer, and in addition to owning property himself and studying law and business, he nows runs the Observer.

Unlike many of his fellow twentysomethings, Jared says he has never really gotten into MySpace.com and that he still reads newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and so on (although he reads many of them online) — so perhaps he’s not really representative of other media consumers in his age bracket. But he makes an important point when asked about how he thinks attitudes toward the media have changed. He says:

“I believe that when it comes to the news, my generation has shorter attention spans and greater expectations. Society and media have evolved to the point where a person has to put forth very little effort to get the news. Rather, the news comes to us. People now expect to be entertained. And if I am not going to provide them with an engaging and cutting-edge product, someone else will.”

A blogger I have come to enjoy named Chartreuse put the same concept in a slightly different (and more poetic) way recently, with this post. The bottom line is that “You have to find old media (what channel? What time? What theatre? What station?). New media finds you.” And most importantly: “Old media is begging for attention. New media is attention.”

What started as an update to my recent post on the AOL search data debacle has taken on a life of its own, so I’ve turned it into a new post.

I wrote a similar post for my “official” blog at globeandmail.com/blogs/geekwatch — in which I wondered why everyone was getting so upset about the AOL data leak, since privacy on the Internet is effectively non-existent anyway — and judging by the comments that post sparked, I seem (or AOL seems) to have struck a nerve when it comes to personal privacy and the Internet.

One reader mentioned the recent New York Times article about the AOL debacle, in which a journalist tracked down a woman living in a small town based on some of the searches she did, which included personal information such as the name of the town — and another reader didn’t think much of my counter-argument that this says more about the journalist and the newspaper that tracked her down than it does about AOL’s release of the data. Some readers also thought my comparison to Rogers releasing information about pay-per-view rentals was spurious, since that wouldn’t include personal data (and I admit it’s not a great analogy).

As I mentioned in my response to those comments, I realize that there is a lot of information included in what AOL released, and that by putting two and two together (as the NYT did) someone could come up with a pretty good idea of who did those searches. I guess the point I was trying to make is that much of that information is already out there, and is effectively publicly available. If you type in your name or address or credit card number, it can be tracked and accessed, and while it takes a little more effort and knowhow than sifting through AOL’s search data (Elliott Back helpfully describes how to do it here), it doesn’t take a whole lot more. Privacy of information on the Internet is not black and white — it is shades of grey. I guess that was my point.

Law professor and blogger Michael Geist, whose opinion I respect, says that I am wrong and that the AOL incident illustrates why such search data should not only not be released but shouldn’t even be kept. John Battelle says that he was secretly thrilled at the New York Times story because “the silver lining of a data leak like this is that it allows the culture to have a conversation about what we’re getting into here by tracking all this data.” I would agree. If you want to explore the issue further, there is some great discussion going on not just in the comment section of my Globe blog but also at Greg Linden’s and Jeff Nolan’s.

When it comes to the $900-million deal between Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and Google for advertising and search-related services at Fox Interactive Media — the bulk of which is made up of MySpace — there are a number of ways of looking at it. On the one hand, it is in some sense a vindication of the half-a-billion dollars or so that Rupert (definitely not a stupid man) paid for MySpace, as Fred Wilson of A VC points out, saying it could be the “best Internet purchase ever.”

The deal also helps to crystallize some of the debate over valuation that has been going on about social networks such as MySpace, a debate that will likely get even more heated if Viacom bids for MySpace competitor Bebo, a deal rumoured to be in the works. Does it mean that MySpace is worth $3-billion, as some have been arguing? Not necessarily. But it does help put some financial meat on the bones of a company everyone has been trying to arrive at a value for. Rafat at PaidContent has a nuts-and-bolts breakdown of the deal.

One of the most interesting elements for me, however, and one very capably described by Om Malik, is how much MySpace needs Google. One of the reasons why the social network’s CPM (cost per thousand) is down around $1 is that it has a gigantic backlog — in part because there are billions of MySpace pages, and in part because advertisers have remained relatively cool to putting their brands on MySpace next to questionable content, to be looked at by fickle teenage users. Too much supply and not enough demand.

How is Google going to deal with that? According to Om and others, it will avoid certain parts of MySpace, and will include other Fox properties such as the IGN gaming network. But at the same time, the whole reason for the deal is so that Google can help create a social-network ad platform — the holy grail for sites like MySpace, as Gigaom contributor Robert Young puts it. That will be interesting to watch.